"        "" "lll,l"«..WI!I,-.^l.li^ 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIFT  OF 


r  -     . 

s*AA«<w£jGUtiLyO .^» 

r 

1     Class 


Zhc  IHnivcrsttg  of  Cbtcaflo 


The  Spirit  of  God  in  Biblical 
Literature 

A  STUDY  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 
RELIGION 


A  DISSERTATION 
Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Arts  and  Literature 
adidacy  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


(Department  of  Biblical  and  Patristic  Greek) 


By 
IRVING  FRANCIS  WOOD 


NEW  YORK 
A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON 

3  and  5  West  Eighteenth  Street 
1904 


Gbe  THnfvereit£  of  Cblcago 

POUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


The  Spirit  of  God  in  Biblical 
Literature 

A  STUDY  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 
RELIGION 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Arts  and  Literature 
in  candidacy  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

(Department  of  Biblical  and  Patristic  Greek) 


By 

IRVING  FRANCIS  WOOD 

]       ;■ 

or  THC 

UNIVERSITY 

NEW  YORK      *&*< 
A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON 

3  and  5  West  Eighteenth  Street 
1904 


Copyright,  1904 
By  A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON 

Published  November,  1904. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 
The  Spirit  of  God  in  Hebrew  Thought 

Chapter  Page 

I.  The  Writings  before  the  Exile 3 

II.  The  Origin  of  the  Conception 26 

III.  The  Canonical  Writings  after  the  Exile. . .  38 

IV.  The  Palestinian- Jewish  Writings 60 

V.  The  Alexandrian- Jewish  Writings 86 

PART  II 
The  Spirit  of  God  in  New  Testament  Thought 

Chapter 

I.  Introduction 117 

II.  The  Synoptic  Gospels 124 

III.  The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 151 

IV.  The  Pauline  Writings 198 

V.  The  Johannean  Writings 233 

PART  III 

Conclusion 261 

Bibliography 271 

Index 275 


vn 


1 433  40 


PART   I 

THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD  IN  HEBREW 
THOUGHT 


\S  R  A* 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

Modern  biblical  study  has  usually  found  little 
place  for  the  treatment  of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  the 
Spirit  of  God.  This  is  not  surprising.  The  sub- 
ject itself  is  very  obscure.  The  Spirit  of  God  seems 
at  first  sight  to  be  hardly  more  than  "an  aspect  of 
God."  If  pursued  until  it  can  become  somewhat 
understood  in  its  historical  relations,  it  is  found 
to  be  intimately  connected  with  certain  conceptions 
of  early  Hebrew  thought,  like  that  of  the  angel  of 
Jehovah,  and  with  certain  experiences  of  Semitic 
life,  like  that  of  prophecy,  the  understanding  of 
whose  early  significance  still  remains  obscure  to  us, 
even  after  scholarship  has  given  us  all  the  help  in 
its  power.  Only  a  long  and  careful  study  can  clear 
up  its  most  obvious  difficulties.  The  data  for  com- 
plete explanation  are  difficult  to  read,  or,  in  some 
cases,  wholly  lacking. 

The  subject,  however,  is  not  of  such  slight  im- 
portance as  is  sometimes  assumed.  It  might  be  a 
sufficient  claim  on  the  attention  of  the  biblical 
student  that  the  New  Testament  conception  of  the 
Spirit  rests  on  the  Old  Testament  conception  as 
its  basis,  and  does  not  admit  of  explanation  without 
Old  Testament  aid.  But  the  subject  has  a  value 
entirely  within  itself;  it  furnishes  a  definite  con- 
tribution to  our  understanding  of  the  Hebrew  con- 

3 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ception  of  divinity.  The  Spirit  of  God  was  not  the 
simple  equivalent  of  God.  Had  the  Hebrew  no 
independent  idea  to  convey  by  the  phrase,  he  would 
not  have  used  it;  or  if  he  had  found  its  use  in 
ancestral  Semitic  language,  would  not  have  per- 
petuated it.  It  must  have  been  significant  for  him. 
It  must  have  added  to  the  range  of  expression  open 
to  him  regarding  either  the  nature  of  God  or  the 
relation  of  God  to  man.  These  two  great  themes 
are  the  subjects  on  which  Hebrew  thought  has 
added  to  the  sum  of  the  world's  religious  knowl- 
edge, and  anything  which  will  help  us  to  understand 
better  the  Hebrew  ideas  regarding  them  is  of  great 
importance  to  the  history  of  religious  development. 
The  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  conception  of 
the  Spirit  is,  like  most  problems  of  religious  origins, 
one  whose  solution  is  a  matter  of  inference  rather 
than  of  direct  testimony.  The  earliest  traces  of 
the  idea  which  we  can  find  in  literature  represent 
a  stage  of  considerable  advancement  in  its  growth. 
From  this  we  must  work  back,  by  the  methods 
known  to  the  study  of  the  history  of  religion,  to 
earlier  stages,  and,  if  possible,  to  the  earliest  stage. 
It  follows  that  a  study  of  the  Hebrew  conception  of 
the  Spirit  cannot  begin  at  the  beginning;  it  must 
begin  with  the  earliest  literature,  the  pre-exilic  his- 
tories and  prophecies,  and  make  its  inferences  from 
this  to  still  earlier  periods  on  which  no  literature 
throws  its  light.  It  is  a  matter  of  course  that  such 
inferences  contain  elements  of  greater  or  less  un- 
certainty.   The  whole  question  resolves  itself  into  a 

4 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

series  of  probabilities.  It  makes  the  matter  still  less 
certain  that  comparative  religion,  much  as  it  has 
been  able  to  accomplish,  can  formulate  mathemat- 
ically no  fixed  laws  of  religious  progress  which  will 
unmistakably  guide  us  in  our  researches.  It  can, 
however,  furnish  principles  of  religious  history 
which  create  probabilities  in  specific  instances  like 
that  furnished  by  our  study.  In  spite,  therefore,  of 
all  uncertainties  and  difficulties  there  is  hope  that 
some  progress  may  be  made  toward  the  discovery 
of  the  origin  and  early  history  of  the  idea  of  the 
Spirit  of  God. 

It  seems  best  for  our  purposes  to  treat  all  pre- 
exilic  prophetic  and  historical  writings  together. 
The  examination  of  the  separate  writings  shows 
no  special  progress,  except  in  one  or  two  particulars 
to  be  hereafter  noticed.  They  all  represent  the  pro- 
phetic school  of  thought,  much  of  the  historic  writ- 
ings being,  of  course,  no  less  prophetic  than  the 
writings  we  call  prophecies.  We  find  in  these  writ- 
ings the  following  distinct  uses  of  Spirit  of  God 
or  Spirit  of  Jahveh : 

A.  The  Spirit  used  of  God  in  the  sphere  of  in- 
dividual mental  life: 

I.  For  endowment  with  charismatic1  gifts: 

(a)  Prophecy:  Mic.  2.  7;  3.  8;2  Hos.  9.  7;  1 
Sam.  10.  6,  10;  19.  9,  20,  23;  1  Kings  22.  22,  ff. ; 
Num.  24.  2.  

1  The  term  "charismatic,"  from  the  New  Testament  word  ^dpfff/zo,  mean- 
ing a  spiritual  endowment  or  gift  for  a  special  purpose,  expresses  so  clearly 
a  fundamental  idea  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  all  stages  of  the  history  of 
the  conception  that  it  may  well  be  used  in  the  period  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  in  that  of  the  New  Testament. 

8  Wellhausen,  Nowack,  and  Briggs  regard  as  a  gloss. 


The  Spirit  of  God 

(b)  Skill  in  ruling:  Num.  n.  17;  Gen.  41.  38; 
Isa.  28.  6. 

(c)  Prowess  in  war:  Judg.  6.  34;  13.  25;  14. 
19;  1  Sam.  11.  6. 

(d)  Bodily  strength:  Judg.  13.  25  (?);  14.  6; 
15.  14  (all  of  Samson). 

(e)  Skill  in  interpretation  of  dreams:  Gen.  41.  38. 
(/)  Without  designation  of  purpose:  1  Sam.  16. 

13.  J4a. 

2.  For  guidance,  influence,  or  direction  in  the 
sphere  of  human  operations,  without  the  implica- 
tion of  direct  charismatic  gifts.  A  conception  some- 
what broader  than  1,  generally  conceived  as  look- 
ing toward  a  result  in  the  field  of  historic  movement. 
A  telic  use:  2  Kings  19.  7  (parallel,  Isa.  37.  7)  ;  Isa. 
29.  10;  32.  15;  30.  1. 

Sometimes  this  spirit  is  evil,  not  as  being  morally 
wicked,  but  as  producing  a  result  which  is  evil. 
Some  of  these  cases,  like  that  of  Saul,  contain  ele- 
ments akin  to  a  charismatic  use:1  Judg.  9.  23;  1 
Sam.  16.  140-22;  18.  10;  19.  92  (comp.  1  Kings 
22.  22). 

1  Briggs  (Journal  of  Biblica  Literature,  1900)  classifies  the  references  to 
the  evil  spirit  which  came  upon  Saul  under  ecstatic  prophecy. 

a  1  Sam.  16.  14b  speaks  of  a  spirit  from  God.  All  other  connected  pas- 
sages say  "Spirit  of  God"  or  "of  Jahveh."  This  one  variation  remains  to  be 
accounted  for.  The  conception  is  certainly  somewhat  different  in  the  two 
sets  of  passages.  "A  spirit  from  God"  seems  to  be  a  later  idea  than  "A 
spirit  of  God."  It  may  be  that  the  text  was  originally  "an  evil  spirit  of 
Jahveh,"  and  that  an  editor,  in  the  interest  of  later  orthodoxy,  has  changed 
it  to  "an  evti  spirit  from  Jahveh"  by  inserting  HN73.  Possibly  he  also 
inserted  14a,  in  accord  with  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  was  a  divine  endowment 
for  kingship.  Such  an  idea  he  might  infer  from  10.  6,  10;  11.  6;  and  16.  13. 
That  the  text  has  received  emendations  is  generally  acknowledged.  H.  P. 
Smith  (Commentary,  p.  149)  says,  "Both  'HPl  d^TON  TTYl  [an  evil  spirit 
of  God]  and  Jl^^l  {IIST1  FlTl  [an  evil  spirit  of  Jahveh]  seem  to  me  to  be 
ungrammatical,  and  I  suspect  that  the  original  was  simply  D^TON  mi 
[a  spirit  of  God]  throughout  this  paragraph."  A  similar  change  in  the 
interest  of  orthodoxy  is  that  from  God  (2  Sam.  24.  1)  to  Satan  (1  Chron- 
21.  z). 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

B.  The  Spirit  used  for  God  acting  in  the  phys- 
ical world,  but  for  the  sake  of  man : 

i.  As  the  basis  of  physical  life:  Gen.  6.  3  (  ?). 

2.  Acting  in  the  external  physical  world :  1  Kings 
18.  12;  2  Kings  2.  16. 

This  classification  brings  out  the  following  no- 
ticeable points: 

1.  The  Spirit  is  used  of  God  acting,  never  of  the 
absolute  divinity,  ab  intra.  It  is  always  dynamic, 
never  static. 

2.  The  Spirit  is  always  used  of  God  acting,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  in  reference  to  man.  Where 
used  of  action  on  external  nature  it  is  still  for  the 
sake  of  man.  In  the  one  passage  where  Spirit  re- 
fers to  the  plan  of  God  it  is  his  plan  with  reference 
to  man.  To  infer  from  this  set  of  passages  that  the 
Spirit  never  meant  to  the  Hebrew  the  absolute 
divine,  God  ab  intra,  would  doubtless  be  unwar- 
ranted. These  writings  are  not  philosophical  nor 
introspective.  They  do  not  discuss  the  idea  of  ab- 
solute divinity,  and  only  incidentally  introduce  the 
conception.  Their  range  lies  largely  in  the  thought 
of  the  activity  of  God,  and  especially  of  that  activ- 
ity in  relation  to  man.  It  would  be  wrong  to  say 
that  the  Hebrew  of  this  time  never  thought  of 
the  Spirit  as  referring  to  God  except  as  acting.  It 
is  right  to  say  that  the  predominant  usage,  and,  so 
far  as  our  sources  go,  the  exclusive  usage,  is  for 
God  as  acting. 

3.  The  dominant  idea  of  the  Spirit  in  our  sources 
is  the  charismatic.    Of  the  various  gifts  which  come 

7 


The  Spirit  of  God 

from  the  Spirit  the  most  extraordinary  and  infre- 
quent are  evidently  conceived  with  the  greatest 
clearness  as  being  the  direct  product  of  the  Spirit. 
With  less  clearness  and  somewhat  more  rarely  other 
gifts  of  less  extraordinary  character  are  also  as- 
cribed to  the  Spirit.  The  bearing  of  this  on  the 
problem  of  the  origin  of  the  idea  we  shall  see  later. 

4.  The  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  physical  life  is  rarely 
found — only  once,  according  to  our  classification. 
Again  the  argument  from  silence  must  not  be 
pressed  too  closely,  for  the  writings  have  little 
occasion  to  deal  with  the  problems  of  the  origin  of 
either  physical  or  mental  life.  Where  we  do  find 
it,  however,  the  thought  is  uniform.  The  JE  story 
of  creation  indicates  the  same  conception  in  its  use 
of  the  term  the  "breath''  of  God  ("breath,"  rtWBfe. 
not  "Spirit,"  tvt\  but  the  connection  of  life  with  the 
divine  is  evidently  the  same)  as  the  origin  of  dis- 
tinctively human  life.  Hebrew  thought  regarding 
the  origin  of  life  had  already  worn  its  channel  for 
any  future  philosophical  speculation. 

The  effects  in  man  which  were  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit  were  the  ecstasy  of  prophecy,  skill  in  ruling 
and  in  giving  judgment,  interpretation  of  dreams, 
fear,  erroneous  decision  and  action;  then,  passing 
by  imperceptible  shades  of  difference  into  phys- 
ical realms,  insanity  with  accompanying  abnormal 
bodily  conditions,  prowess  in  war,  extraordinary 
strength.  The  one  principle  which  binds  this  vary- 
ing group  of  psychical  and  physical  phenomena  to- 
gether is  that  they  all  represent  some  phase  of  the 

8 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

extraordinary.  Sometimes  it  is  psychical  manifesta- 
tions which  cannot  be  accounted  for  in  ordinary 
ways,  such  as  the  prophetic  ecstasy  or  Saul's  insan- 
ity. Sometimes  it  is  only  an  unusual  manifestation 
of  what  is  in  less  degree  normal,  like  the  traditional 
ideas  of  Samson's  strength.  Sometimes  it  is  merely 
the  unexpected,  which  seems  to  observers  to  happen 
without  sufficient  external  reason,  like  the  affright 
of  the  Assyrian  army  (2  Kings  19.  7). 

Was  the  fact  that  a  phenomenon  was  extraor- 
dinary and  infrequent  sufficient  in  itself  to  cause 
the  ascription  of  the  event  to  the  Spirit  of  God? 
In  the  naive  condition  of  thought  which  the  early 
Hebrews  represent  it  would  not  be  surprising  if 
this  were  the  case.  Where  great  mountains  were 
the  mountains  of  God  and  the  thunder  the  voice 
of  God  it  can  hardly  be  otherwise  than  that  every 
unusual  and  inexplicable  phenomenon  in  man  should 
be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God  as  its  cause.  In 
primitive  races  the  god  is  always  the  deus  ex  ma- 
china  which  is  brought  in  when  other  explanations 
fail.  But  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  in  our  literary 
sources  the  Spirit  is  never  used  as  a  cause  except 
of  those  things  which  have  to  do  with  the  affairs 
of  the  people  of  Israel.  The  personal  experiences 
of  the  private  Hebrew  are  not  ascribed  to  the  Spirit 
of  God,  but  only  those  which  bear  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  good  or  ill,  upon  the  progress  of  national 
matters,  or,  at  least,  of  those  whose  results  bear 
in  some  obvious  way  upon  the  life  of  considerable 
portions  of  the  community.     This  may  be  partly 

9 


The  Spirit  of  God 

because  our  authors  are  all  prophets  and  are  inter- 
ested in  national  affairs.  There  must  be  added  to 
this,  however,  the  fact  that  early  religion  was  always 
tribal.  In  their  earlier  forms  religious  and  public 
life  were  the  same  thing.  An  individual  religion 
had  not  yet  developed  in  Israel.  Jehovah  was  a 
national  God,  and  his  relations  were  with  national 
matters,  not  with  those  of  individuals.  It  is  true 
that  individual  religion  was  a  direct  inference  from 
the  ethical  positions  of  Amos,  Micah,  and  the  later 
prophets,  but  not  till  the  exile  did  the  Hebrews 
make  this  inference  in  any  clear  and  complete  way. 
Had  it  been  made  before,  Ezekiel's  elaborate  argu- 
ments for  a  personal  religion  would  have  been  his- 
torically out  of  place. 

With  this  view  of  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to 
Israel  it  is  easy  to  see  that  no  religious  writer  in- 
terested in  national  affairs  would  demean  the  Spirit 
of  Jehovah  to  the,  for  him,  trivial  position  of  a  guide 
in  private  action.  The  work  of  the  "seers"  in  Israel 
in  the  earliest  literary  period,  as  shown  in  the  case 
of  Saul's  appeal  to  Samuel  in  the  matter  of  his 
father's  lost  asses,  is  not  a  contradiction  of  this. 
It  is  true  that  "the  man  of  God"  was  expected  to 
assist  in  the  needs  of  private  life,  and  doubtless  his 
work,  like  that  of  all  the  prophets,  was  regarded 
as  the  product  of  the  activity  of  the  Spirit.  But 
such  a  public  character  had  a  relation  to  more  than 
individual  life.  His  work,  even  in  the  simple  pic- 
ture presented  in  the  earliest  Samuel  document,  was 
quasi-tribal,  in  that  it  might  affect  an  entire  com- 

10 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

munity  in  Israel.  The  Spirit  was  not  given  to  the 
prophet  for  his  individual  behoof  or  for  that  of  any 
other  single  person,  but  for  the  good  of  the  people 
of  Jehovah,  in  whole  or  in  part.  He  used  it  in  cer- 
tain cases  for  the  advantage  of  individuals,  but  it 
remained  a  sort  of  public  possession,  whose  usufruct 
rested  in  the  body  politic.  Every  man  might  use  it 
in  case  of  need,  but  the  motive  of  Jehovah  in  the 
prophetic  gift  was  the  benefit  of  his  community, 
considered  as  a  community.  That  this  tribal  re- 
ligion logically  involves  an  individual  religion  Israel 
saw  later.  That  they  did  not  see  it  in  an  earlier 
age  only  shows  that  they  had  not  yet  passed  out 
of  that  tribal  stage  in  the  development  of  religion 
which  has  been  common  to  all  nations. 

This  helps  us  in  some  measure  to  answer  a  related 
question:  Were  certain  phenomena  always  and 
everywhere  regarded  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  with- 
out regard  to  their  importance  or  the  range  of  their 
results?  The  worship  of  every  wandering  band 
of  dervish-like  prophets  in  Israel  was,  judging  from 
i  Sam.  10  and  19,  regarded  as  the  result  of  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  but  certainly  it  did  not  always  have  a 
national  importance.  But  the  entire  significance  of 
the  prophetic  order  lies  in  its  relation  to  the  com- 
munity. The  order  is  public  per  se;  therefore  all 
phenomena  connected  with  it  are  the  result  of  the 
spirit  of  the  god  which  rules  in  the  community. 

More  difficult  are  the  problems  raised  by  such  a 
case  of  peculiar  and  unaccountable  disease  as  that 
under  which  Saul  suffered.     Would  a  peasant  in 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Israel,  subject  to  the  same  maladies  which  afflicted 
King  Saul,  have  been  regarded  as  the  victim  of  a 
"spirit  from  God"  ?  Was  it  the  national  importance 
of  Saul  which  caused  his  suffering  to  be  ascribed  to 
a  spirit?  One  cannot  be  dogmatic  on  this  point, 
for  we  have  no  case  in  the  literature  which  will  de- 
cide the  question  for  us.  The  general  principle  of 
the  unity  of  religious  and  public  life  would  seem  to 
give  the  events  of  the  life  of  the  king  a  religious 
significance  which  those  of  a  peasant  would  not 
have,  but  the  distinction  between  public  and  private 
life  is  not  easy  to  draw.  Private  conduct  was  early 
recognized  as  having  public  bearings,  as  in  the 
story  of  the  sin  of  Achan,  and  private  misfortunes 
as  due  to  public  faults.  Even  apart  from  this  con- 
nection popular  religious  thought  assumed  a  rela- 
tion between  God  and  the  private  individual  before 
the  leaders  of  religion  were  ready  to  recognize  it. 
Sometimes  the  strength  of  "orthodox"  thought  com- 
pelled popular  religion  to  go  outside  the  tribal  re- 
ligion for  this  relation,  when  it  became  illicit  religion 
or  "black  magic."  Possibly  this  is  partly  the  ex- 
planation of  the  cult  of  the  familiar  spirit  (sia), 
in  Israel  at  the  time  of  Saul.  But  the  care  of  the 
god  for  his  people  furnishes  a  ground  of  private 
relation  between  them  to  which  men  have  never 
been  quite  oblivious,  however  little  their  literature 
has  recognized  it.  One  cannot  feel  at  all  sure  that 
the  peasant  suffering  from  a  disease  kindred  to 
that  of  King  Saul  would  not  have  been  supposed 
by  his  neighbors  to  be  afflicted  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 

12 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

without  thought  of  any  immediate  connection  be- 
tween his  malady  and  the  welfare  of  the  community. 
The  literature,  however,  presents  us  with  no  such 
case. 

In  the  case  of  traditional  matters,  like  the  warlike 
valor  of  Gideon  or  the  strength  of  Samson,  it  is 
easy  to  see  how  the  importance  of  the  work  of 
these  heroes  for  national  progress  may  have  led 
naturally  to  the  ascription  of  their  peculiar  quali- 
ties of  leadership  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  same 
was  the  case  when,  looking  forward  to  the  ideal 
ruler  of  the  future,  the  prophet  pictured  the  Mes- 
siah as  possessing  powers  of  leadership  which  were 
to  be  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  any  warrior  or  ruler 
of  pre-exilic  time  claimed  for  himself  personal  guid- 
ance by  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  why  should  he  not, 
as  well  as  the  prophet?  In  general  his  work  had 
a  much  more  obvious  relation  to  public  welfare. 
We  must  not  forget  that  we  usually  have  in  view 
only  the  mountain  tops  of  Hebrew  prophecy.  Be- 
neath the  lofty  prophets  of  individual  fame  there 
lay  a  great  substratum  of  obscure  and  sometimes 
ignoble  professional  prophets,  most  of  whom  were 
very  insignificant  by  the  side  of  the  great  warriors 
and  rulers.  Yet  they  claimed  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
the  warrior  and  ruler  did  not.  Obviously  the  dif- 
ference was  not  wholly  a  matter  of  public  impor- 
tance. It  must  have  lain,  then,  in  the  difference  of 
psychical  experience  between  the  two.  The  mental 
and  sometimes  physical  phenomena  which  attended 

13 


The  Spirit  of  God 

prophecy  were  entirely  different  from  anything  ex- 
perienced by  the  warrior  or  ruler.  They  were  un- 
accountable by  ordinary  means,  and  demanded  a 
supernatural  explanation.  We  must  return  to  this 
prophetic  experience  later.  Now  we  can  say,  in 
answer  to  the  question  under  discussion,  there  are 
certain  phenomena  always  and  everywhere  ascribed 
to  the  Spirit,  namely,  those  of  prophecy.  But  the 
entire  purpose  and  significance  of  prophecy  lies  in 
its  actual  or  potential  public  character.  The  human 
experiences  which  are  assigned  to  the  Spirit  of  the 
national  God  as  a  cause  in  Hebrew  literature,  then, 
contain  two  elements:  they  were  inexplicable  by 
nature  as  the  Hebrew  knew  it,  and  they  had  a 
national  character. 

Another  element  in  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  is 
brought  under  consideration  by  the  question,  Was 
it  regarded  as  adding  to  man's  natural  powers,  or 
as  always  endowing  those  upon  whom  it  came  with 
powers  wholly  new?  Gunkel1  holds  that  it  was 
not  conceived  as  adding  to  natural  powers:  "The 
working  of  the  Spirit  is  not  in  any  way  the  enhanc- 
ing of  a  nature  common  to  all  men,  but  is  plainly 
supernatural  and  therefore  divine."  Certainly  in 
some  cases  we  must  agree  with  Gunkel  that  the 
powers  were  wholly  new.  The  wrapt  ecstasy  of 
prophecy  was  not  part  of  the  normal  life  of  man. 
That  it  was  not  regarded  by  the  people  as  normal 
is  shown  by  the  use  of  NMrti,  "to  act  the  proph- 
et," to  indicate  the  conduct  of  a  madman.     The 

lDie  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes,  1899,  p.  22. 
14 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

whole  content  of  the  picture  of  the  prophet  is  that 
of  one  moved  by  an  external  power.  Duties  and 
missions  are  forgotten  under  its  influence  (i  Sam. 
19.  18-24).  There  is  a  compulsion  in  it.  "The 
Lord  hath  spoken,  who  can  but  prophesy  ?"  In  the 
later  pre-exilic  time  the  prophet  is  in  many  cases 
a  clear-eyed,  reasoning  statesman,  yet  still  the  ele- 
ment of  compulsion  remains.  He  is  moved  by  a 
power  from  without.  His  words  are  the  result  not 
of  a  heightened  human  reason,  but  of  a  divine 
power,  external  to  himself.  As  the  obligation 
changes  from  the  older,  cruder  physical  compul- 
sion it  takes  on  the  still  stronger  form  of  moral 
compulsion.  Prophecy  in  Semitic  life  is  by  its 
nature  a  power  external  to  man's  consciousness. 

But  when  the  Spirit  is  conceived  as  acting  in 
fields  in  which  man  has  natural  powers,  as  wisdom, 
strength,  skill  in  ruling,  it  is  entirely  gratuitous  to 
suppose  that  the  Hebrew  thought  of  it  as  intro- 
ducing a  new  power  ab  extra.  Why  should  it? 
What  relation  would  the  new  superhuman  power 
be  conceived  of  as  bearing  to  the  natural  human 
power?  Would  it  take  the  place  of  the  human 
power,  rendering  it  for  the  time  inoperative,  or 
would  it  add  a  foreign  element,  like  a  mercenary 
army  assisting  a  native  troop?  It  is  by  asking 
such  questions  that  the  difficulty  of  the  position 
Gunkel  holds  is  best  realized.  There  is  nothing  in 
either  the  sources  or  the  situation  itself  which  com- 
pels us  to  take  any  ground  except  the  natural  one 
that  the  Spirit  was  conceived  as  supplementing  or- 

15 


The  Spirit  of  God 

dinary  human  powers,  so  that  they  might  meet 
extraordinary  demands. 

On  the  one  hand,  then,  we  have  the  Spirit  giving 
superhuman  powers;  on  the  other,  aiding  and  aug- 
menting human  powers.  The  point  of  distinction 
between  them  is  this :  Powers  which  were  in  them- 
selves abnormal  were  regarded  as  caused  by  new 
endowments,  which  were  the  direct  result  of  the 
Spirit ;  while  powers  which  were  in  themselves  nor- 
mal, but  which  were  developed  to  an  extraordinary 
degree,  were  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  in  so  far  as  they 
exceeded  the  usual  and  normal  condition.  The 
seeming  discrepancy  between  the  two  classes  of 
cases  causes  no  difficulty.  The  discrepancy  is  in 
the  nature  of  the  phenomena.  The  conception  of 
the  action  of  the  Spirit  remains  the  same.  The 
Spirit  is  regarded  as  the  cause  of  the  extraordinary 
and  unusual  in  mental  life.  We  have  already 
seen,  however,  that  the  explanation  of  augmented 
human  power  as  caused  by  endowment  of  the  Spirit 
is  never  assumed  by  anyone,  but  in  every  case  is 
ascribed  by  others  to  a  traditional  character,  like 
Gideon  or  Samson.  For  the  purposes  of  living  re- 
ligious experience  the  Spirit  is  in  this  period  always 
conceived  as  an  external  power  acting  supernatu- 
rally  upon  the  person. 

A  question  of  greater  importance  is  whether  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit  in  early  Israel  always  had 
a  religious  value.  Here  there  has  been  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  Most  have  held  that  even  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  work  of  the  Spirit  had  always 

16 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

a  religious  significance.  Gunkel,  who  says  that 
this  has  been  the  opinion  "fast  regelmassig  auf- 
gestellt"  (page  15),  cites  for  it  Wendt,  Pfleiderer, 
Kleinert,  in  the  Jahrb.  {.  deutsche  TheoL,  1867,  and 
Schultz.  To  these  we  may  add  Davidson,  in  the 
Expository  Times,  October,  1899,  who  says,  'The 
Spirit  given  to  men  such  as  Gideon,  Jephtha,  Sam- 
uel, and  others  was  this  theocratic  redemptive  Spirit 
[perhaps  even  Samson's  inspiration  may  be  brought 
in  here] ;  it  was  Jehovah  operating  in  men  for  re- 
demptive purposes,  saving  and  ruling  his  people.,, 
Gunkel,  however,  takes  a  different  ground  (page 
16).  He  admits  that  in  many  cases  the  action  of 
the  Spirit  has  significance  for  the  purposes  of  God 
in  Israel,  but  denies  that  it  is  so  in  all.  What  mean- 
ing for  these  purposes,  he  asks,  could  Samson's 
slaughter  of  the  lion  in  the  vineyard  have?  (Judg. 
14.  6.)  Or  what  religious  value  is  in  the  spiritual 
manifestations  related  in  1  Sam.  10.  6,  ff. ;  19.  20, 
ff.?  He  directs  special  attention  to  1  Kings  18.  7, 
ff.,  and  2  Kings  2.  16,  ff.,  as  cases  which  have  no 
conceivable  religious  significance. 

One  queries  whether  either  side  has  quite  pene- 
trated to  the  region  in  which  we  must  find  the  true 
answer.  The  question  they  discuss  is,  Would  the 
developed  religious  ideas  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
or  at  least  of  the  New  Testament,  find  their  wants 
met  in  these  phenomena?  Doubtless  they  would 
not.  But,  after  all,  that  is  not  the  question.  The 
real  problem  is  much  more  difficult.  It  is,  Were 
these  manifestations  regarded  by  the  Hebrews  as 
(2)  17 


The  Spirit  of  God 

of  religious  significance?  This  demands  for  its 
answer  an  appreciation  of  some  elements  in  the 
Hebrew  religious  consciousness. 

We  must  remember  two  things:  first,  that  re- 
ligious values  are  not  always,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  our  ethics,  moral  values;  and,  second,  that 
religious  values,  in  the  cruder  stages  of  civilization, 
often  attach  themselves  to  any  extraordinary  phe- 
nomena. Witness  the  power  of  the  merely  unusual 
in  the  determination  of  sacred  objects  and  places. 
The  fact  that  a  certain  spring  in  Ceylon  issues  from 
the  ground  at  the  seashore  below  the  level  of  high 
tide  has  been  sufficient  to  make  its  waters  sacred. 
Witness  the  "power"  and  the  "holy  laugh"  in  re- 
vivals in  our  own  country.  The  "special  provi- 
dence" which  plays  so  large  a  part  in  the  religious 
experience  of  many  is  often  little  more  than  a  mod- 
ern form  of  the  belief  that  the  unusual  is  specially 
divine.  All  this  opens  up  the  possibility  that  all 
the  phenomena  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  in  our  sources 
may  have  had  a  religious  value.  To  prove  that  they 
did  have  such  a  value  is  somewhat  more  difficult. 
With  regard  to  most  of  them,  however,  the  case  is 
clear.  Prophecy  was  always  religious.  It  formed 
the  most  direct  link  between  God  and  man.  All 
cases  of  extraordinary  wisdom  or  skill  in  war  or 
government  are  for  the  direct  behoof  of  the  people 
of  Jahveh.  Remembering  that  early  religious  sig- 
nificance is  largely — at  a  certain  stage  exclusively 
— tribal,  these  must  all  be  classed  as  religious.  The 
case  of  Samson  is  governed  by  the  same  considera- 

18 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

tions.  His  strength  was  an  element  in  the  conflict 
between  the  Philistines  and  the  Hebrews,  for  the 
sake  of  which  the  editor  of  the  present  book  of 
Judges  preserves  the  stories  of  his  prowess.  The 
fact  that  this  strength  was  once,  according  to  the 
story,  used  in  the  slaughter  of  a  lion  does  not  take 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  which  gave  it  outside  of  the 
realm  of  religion.  Somewhat  akin  is  the  evil  spirit 
which  came  upon  Saul.  The  editor  of  the  books  of 
Samuel  wishes  to  show  that  all  the  events  of  Saul's 
reign  were  designed  by  God  to  prepare  the  way 
for  the  ascent  of  David  to  the  throne.  The  edi- 
torial purpose  accounts  for  the  preservation  of  these 
stories  of  Samson  and  Saul.  Both  seem  to  be  de- 
rived from  popular  folk-tales,  which  probably  al- 
ready contained  the  supernatural  elements,  and  for 
the  people  the  extraordinary  and  inexplicable,  when 
related  to  the  public  welfare  in  any  way,  needed  no 
special  significance  to  make  it  religious.  The  very 
fact  that  it  was  inexplicable  showed  that  in  it  the 
god  was  approaching  his  people,  and  this  approach 
might  be  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good,  i  Kings  18. 
7,  ff.,  and  2  Kings  2.  16,  which  Gunkel  so  strongly 
emphasizes,  are  both  to  be  interpreted  as  attached 
in  religious  significance  to  the  conception  of  God's 
relation  to  the  prophet.  So  realistic  was  the  belief 
in  the  divine  control  of  the  prophet  that  the  Spirit 
might  be  expected  to  transport  him  bodily  at  will, 
even  without  the  prophet's  desire  and  to  his  bodily 
harm.  Such  a  conception  is  not  religious  when  de- 
tached from  the  connected  thought  of  the  whole 

19 


The  Spirit  of  God 

meaning  of  the  prophet's  work.  Neither  has  the 
organ  prelude  in  a  modern  church  any  religious 
significance  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  service.  We 
have  no  right  to  make  such  detachments.  A  con- 
cept must  be  taken  for  religious  significance,  in 
either  ancient  or  modern  times,  in  its  whole  con- 
tent, not  with  isolation  of  its  component  parts. 

It  is  true  that  nothing  is  more  difficult  than  to 
reproduce  exactly  the  religious  values  of  another 
age,  but  our  sources  seem  to  show  no  case  in  which 
a  phenomenon  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  may  not  be 
supposed  to  have  religious  content.  When  we  re- 
call that  we  are  here  dealing  with  phenomena 
which,  by  the  very  terms  of  their  description,  are 
placed  in  connection  with  the  national  God,  the  con- 
clusion that  the  working  of  the  Spirit  always  had 
a  religious  value  for  the  early  Hebrews  becomes 
strengthened  until  it  amounts  to  a  practical  demon- 
stration. 

Did  the  Hebrews  make  a  clear  distinction  be- 
tween Jahveh  or  Elohim  and  the  Spirit  of  Jahveh 
or  the  Spirit  of  Elohim?  There  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that,  in  the  times  we  are  considering,  they 
did.  All  the  phenomena  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  were 
also  ascribed  directly  to  Jahveh  and  Elohim.  The 
narrative  of  the  oracles  of  Balaam  is  instructive  on 
this  point  (Num.  22  to  24).  The  story  is  a  com- 
posite of  J  and  E,  though  the  points  of  division 
are  not  always  clear.  Addis1  suggests  that  the 
ancient  poem  at  the  basis  of  the  two  accounts  may 

'Article  "Balaam"  in  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 
20 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

go  back  in  its  kernel  to  the  time  of  Solomon,  while 
he  places  the  poems  as  we  now  have  them  not  earlier 
than  the  beginning  of  the  work  of  the  literary 
prophets.  In  any  case  they  represent  popular  thought. 
The  J  portion  uses  the  Spirit  of  Elohim  as  the  agent 
of  prophetic  inspiration  (see  Num.  24.  2).  E  uses 
the  following  phrases  to  express  the  same  fact: 
"Elohim  came  to  Balaam  by  night"  (22.  20)  ;  "Elo- 
him met  Balaam"  (23.  4)  ;  "Elohim  came  unto 
Balaam"  {22.  9) ;  "Jahveh  put  a  word  in  Balaam's 
mouth"  (23.  5) ;  "Jahveh  met  Balaam,  and  put  a 
word  in  his  mouth"  (23.  16).  (In  the  last  two 
passages  "Jahveh"  is  to  be  assigned  to  R.)  Pro- 
phetic ecstasy  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  one  kind  of 
phenomenon  which  is  most  characteristic  of  the 
Spirit.  If  it  can  be  ascribed  to  either  God  or  the 
Spirit  of  God,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  same 
might  not  be  done  with  any  other  class  of  the  works 
of  the  Spirit. 

The  most  difficult  group  of  cases  is  undoubtedly 
those  which  ascribe  evil  to  the  Spirit  of  God  or  to 
a  spirit  from  Jahveh,  as  1  Sam.  16.  14,  fT.  Yet 
when  the  appendix  to  Samuel  (2  Sam.  24.  1)  says 
that  "Jahveh  moved  David  against  Israel  to  number 
them"  the  idea  is  essentially  the  same.  "I  make 
peace  and  create  evil"  (Isa.  45.  7)  is  an  exilic 
phrase,  but  the  idea  belongs  to  the  old  Hebrew 
range  of  thought. 

In  some  cases  possibly  we  may  see  a  preference 
of  authors  for  one  or  the  other  form  of  expression. 
In  the  stories  of  the  judges  the  heroism  of  the  dif- 

21 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ferent  judges  is  frequently  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of 
Jahveh.  (See  Judg.  3.  10;  6.  34;  11.  19;  14.  19. 
Compare  1  Sam.  11.  6,  which  belongs  to  the  same 
range  of  thought  if  not  to  the  same  cycle  of  stories. 
See  Smith,  Samuel,  page  76.)  The  editor  of 
Judges,  though  he  summarizes  the  whole  period  in 
2.  11-18,  does  not  use  the  term,  but  says  that  "Jah- 
veh  raised  up  judges"  (2.  16,  18).  "Jahveh  raised 
up  a  saviour"  (3.  9,  15)  also  comes  from  the  editor, 
while  "the  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  upon  him"  (3. 
10)  is  probably  preserved  from  the  sources  of  the 
Judges  stories. 

Parallel  to  the  use  of  the  editor  of  Judges  is  the 
usage  of  the  editor  of  Kings,  where  the  Spirit  is 
never  regarded  as  the  source  of  prowess  in  war. 
One  questions  whether  here  we  may  not  have  an 
element  of  progress  from  the  earlier  and  more  naive 
conceptions  of  the  tales  of  the  judges.  It  is  of 
interest  in  this  connection  to  note  that  the  crudest 
Hebrew  ideas  of  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  mental 
and  physical  phenomena  are  found  in  these  tales  of 
the  judges,  in  the  Elijah  stories,  and  in  the  earlier 
document  of  Samuel.  All  these  are  among  the 
earliest  portions  of  Hebrew  literature.  They  bear 
marks  of  the  popular  story  of  the  East,  and  may 
be  supposed  to  represent  popular  conceptions. 
Seemingly  in  the  ideas  of  the  Spirit,  as  elsewhere, 
the  prophets  refined  and  spiritualized  popular  re- 
ligious ideas. 

But  if  there  is  no  clear  distinction  between  God 
and  the  Spirit  of  God,  can  we  still  find  at  the  period 

22 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

of  Hebrew  thought  with  which  we  are  dealing  any 
special  classes  of  phenomena  habitually  ascribed  to 
the  Spirit?  Was  there  any  tendency  toward  the 
differentiation  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  from  that 
of  God  ?  Let  us  take  the  sources  which  use  the  term 
most  frequently,  the  stories  of  the  judges  and  the 
earlier  documents  of  Samuel.  The  cases  of  use 
are: 

Judg.  6.  34:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  upon 
Gideon,  and  he  made  war  upon  Midian. 

Judg.  13.  25 :  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  began  to  stir 
Samson. 

Judg.  14.  6:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  upon 
Samson,  and  he  rent  a  lion. 

Judg.  15.  14:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  strongly 
upon  Samson,  and  he  performed  feats  of  strength. 

1  Sam.  10.  6,  10:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came 
strongly  upon  Saul,  and  he  prophesied. 

1  Sam.  11.  6:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  strongly 
upon  Saul,  and  he  led  Israel  to  the  relief  of  Jabesh. 

1  Sam.  16.  14:  An  evil  spirit  of  Jahveh  came 
upon  Saul. 

1  Sam.  16.  15,  16:  An  evil  spirit  of  Elohim  came 
upon  Saul  (so  19.  23,  except  with  omission  of 
"evil,"  «*). 

1  Sam.  18.  10:  An  evil  spirit  of  Elohim  came 
strongly  upon  Saul,  and  he  prophesied. 

1  Sam.  19.  9:  An  evil  spirit  of  Jahveh  came  on 
Saul,  and  he  attempted  to  k'U  David  (Budde, 
Wellhausen,  Driver,  and  Smith  agree  in  emending 
to  "Elohim"). 

23 


The  Spirit  of  God 

The  above  list  includes  only  passages  from  J  and 
E,  according  to  the  analysis  of  Moore's  Judges  and 
Budde's  Samuel,  The  careful  reader  will  observe 
that  various  passages  of  the  books  using  the  Spirit 
of  Jahveh  or  the  Spirit  of  Elohim  are  omitted.  They 
are  those  assigned  to  later  writers.  In  some  cases 
they  are  obvious  imitations  of  the  usage  in  the  sur- 
rounding narratives  (comp.  Judg.  14.  19)  or  in 
kindred  accounts  (comp.  Judg.  3.  10).  In  at  least 
one  case  (1  Sam.  19.  20,  23)  we  probably  have 
some  elements  of  an  early  source  preserved  in  a 
later  section  (see  below).  The  complete  list  of  the 
remaining  passages  is  as  follows : 

Judg.  3.  10:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  upon 
Othniel,  and  he  judged  Israel  (Imitation  of  kindred 
accounts). 

Judg.  9.  23:  Elohim  sent  an  evil  spirit  between 
Abimelech  and  the  men  of  Shechem  (E2). 

Judg.  11.  29:  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  upon 
Jephthah,  and  he  made  war  upon  Amon  (Post- 
exilic  addition.  Imitation  of  kindred  narratives. 
See  6.  34). 

Judg.  14.  19 :  The  Spirit  of  Jahveh  came  strongly 
upon  Samson,  and  he  slew  thirty  men  of  Askelon 
(RJE.  Imitation  of  other  Samson  stories.  See  14. 
6;  15.  14). 

1  Sam.  19.  20,  23,  is  assigned  to  a  late  date  by 
Budde  et  al,  but  the  conception  of  prophecy  which 
it  shows  is  certainly  early.  Perhaps  its  present  form 
and  exaggerated  supernaturalism  is  late  (see  23, 
where  the  Spirit  seizes  upon  Saul  before  he  comes 

24 


The  Writings  before  the  Exile 

under  the  influence  of  the  prophets).  The  essence 
of  the  account,  however,  must  be  early.  It  shows 
a  very  vivid  recollection  of  early  forms  of  Semitic 
prophecy.  It  would  seem  to  be  a  proper  witness 
to  early  popular  conceptions  of  the  Spirit. 

These  passages  which  represent  directly  or  by 
reflection  early  popular  thought  show  that  the  un- 
usual in  mental  and  physical  life,  for  which  no 
natural  cause  could  be  found,  was,  when  connected 
with  national  progress,  assigned  to  the  Spirit. 
While  the  early  stories  show  a  preference  for  the 
use  of  the  Spirit,  they  also  assign  kindred  phenom- 
ena to  the  direct  action  of  God  (see  I  Sam.  9.  15; 
Judg.  6.  14,  25).  That  it  is  exactly  the  same  phe- 
nomena as  is  the  case  in  the  Balaam  stories  noted 
above  is  not  so  clear.  Revealed  knowledge,  theoph- 
anies,  and  commands  lie  in  a  different  category  from 
prowess  in  war,  physical  strength,  or  prophetic 
ecstasy.  This  group  of  conceptions  was  surrounded 
by  a  penumbra  Which  gradually  faded  off  till  the 
distinction  between  the  operation  of  God  and  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  was  completely  obscured.  That 
the  whole  conception  of  the  Spirit  grew  up  out  of 
the  root  idea  of  the  unusual  in  mental  and  physical 
life  seems,  however,  quite  clear. 

25 


CHAPTER  H 

The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

Any  attempt  to  find  the  origin  of  a  religious  con- 
ception must  take  its  point  of  departure  from  the 
central  form  of  the  idea  in  its  earliest  discoverable 
expression.  That  meaning  may  be  many  stages  in 
advance  of  its  original  conception,  but  it  will  be  at 
least  on  the  way  along  which  we  must  retrace  our 
steps  to  reach  the  original  conception. 

Another  aid  in  the  study  of  origins  which  is 
sometimes — not  always — of  great  value  is  the  mean- 
ing of  words,  the  etymological  aid.  All  who  are 
familiar  with  the  history  of  Aryan  mythology  know 
the  great  assistance  which  it  has  rendered  there. 
The  battles  which  have  raged  about  the  question 
of  its  application  do  not  touch  the  fact  of  its  real 
value.  Both  these  two  aids  of  research  we  may 
use  in  our  study. 

The  central  thought  of  the  popular  interpreta- 
tion of  the  idea  in  its  earliest  attainable  form  is 
that  of  the  Spirit  as  God  acting  in  the  extraordinary 
and  infrequent  phenomena  of  human  life.  This  we 
may  well  take  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  original 
idea.  Early  man  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to 
bring  in  the  divine  to  explain  the  ordinary.  He 
accepted  that  in  a  childlike  way  as  a  part  of  the 
expected.     The  unexpected  demanded  explanation, 

26 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

and  to  that  he  applied  the  idea  of  divine  aid  to 
account  for  its  existence.1 

We  have  seen  how  wide  was  the  range  of  activ- 
ities covered  by  this  seemingly  contracted  term  even 
in  the  earliest  literary  period;  we  might  indeed  say 
in  the  pre-literary  period,  for  much  of  the  folklore 
had  certainly  hardened  into  the  main  lines  of  its 
structure  before  it  came  to  the  hands  that  wrote 
it  down.  The  term  covered  deeds  of  war,  bodily 
strength,  prophecy,  unaccountable  disease — in  fact, 
anything  inexplicable  which  could  be  thought  of  as 
in  any  way  connected  with  tribal  or  community 
advantage.  Is  it  possible  to  push  our  investigations 
behind  this  somewhat  promiscuous  mass,  and  find 
some  one  class  of  phenomena  which  was  probably 
the  central  point  from  which  all  the  rest  radiated? 
That  there  was  such  a  central  point  we  may  be  sure. 
It  is  hardly  possible  that  from  the  earliest  use  of  the 
term  any  unusual  human  phenomena  whatever,  if 
only  it  was  of  tribal  significance,  might  be  assigned 
to  the  Spirit. 

Indications  point  toward  prophecy  as  being  the 
central  point  around  which  the  conceptions  of  the 
Spirit's  activity  were  built.  Early  Hebrew  prophecy 
had  no  lofty  religious  content  and  manifested  itself 
in  no  lofty  mental  results.  It  was  essentially  an 
experience  which  carried  the  prophet  outside  of  him- 
self. In  the  earliest  Hebrew  literary  period  it 
could  be  induced  at  will  by  the  mental  excitement  of 
music — that  intoxicant  of  the  emotions  which  has 

1Jevons,  Introduction  to  the  History  of  Religion,  p.  19. 

27 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Inspired  so  much  of  religious  feelings  and  their 
results  in  both  the  ancient  and  the  modern  world1 — 
or  might  come  unwittingly  by  the  very  contact  with 
the  experiences  of  others  (i  Sam.  10.  10;  19.  18- 
24 ).2  It  seemed  obvious  that  such  facts  could  be 
accounted  for  by  no  human  means.  It  must  be  the 
god  in  the  man. 

Here  Hebrew  thought  is  in  the  same  range  of 
ideas  as  that  of  all  early  nations.  Everywhere  an 
essential  element  of  religion  has  been  the  idea  that 
God  could  communicate  directly  with  man,  that  man 
could  speak  words  and  do  deeds  that  were  directly 
inspired  by  God.3  Peculiar  mental  and  physical 
conditions  which  were  inexplicable  to  him  easily 
passed  for  the  states  in  which  the  god  was  giving 
his  special  communications.  To  this  range  of  ideas 
belongs  a  wide  circle  of  religious  conceptions,  in- 
cluding some  which  are  by  no  means  yet  outgrown. 
In  fact,  the  idea  of  the  direct  communication  of  God 
with  man  is  the  essential  thought  of  religion. 
Without  it  no  religion  worthy  the  name  is  possible. 
Here  belong,  along  with  the  Hebrew  prophet,  the 
shaman  of  central  Asia,  the  medicine  man  of  the 
American  Indians,  the  Greek  oracle,  Socrates's  be- 
lief that  he  was  guided  by  a  daemon,  and,  not  less, 
the   modern   Christian   conceptions   of  conversion. 

1  a  Kings  3.  15.  The  cycle  of  Elijah -Elisha  stories  represents  the  older 
type  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

*  The  writer  remembers  observing  in  a  mosque  of  the  "howling  dervishes" 
how  a  group  of  women,  ranged  outside  the  windows  of  the  central  cupola. 
were  gradually  brought  under  the  spell  of  the  motion  of  the  worshipers 
below  until  their  heads  and  bodies  were  swaying  in  perfect,  though  seem- 
ingly unconscious,  unison  with  every  form  of  the  varying  contortions  of 
the  band  of  dervishes  beneath. 

*  Brinton,  Religions  of  Primitive  Peoples,  p.  50,  ff. 

28 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

Hebrew  prophecy  is  but  the  representative  of  this 
great  universal  religious  idea.  It  is  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  from  this  early  and  universal  conception 
proceed  other  ideas  of  the  communication  of  God 
with  man. 

But  why  the  Spirit?  We  have  seen  that,  so  far 
as  we  may  judge  from  our  earliest  sources,  this 
influence  was  sometimes  assigned  to  God  himself. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  was  not  true 
in  Hebrew  thought  earlier  than  our  sources.  Why, 
then,  the  idea  of  a  Spirit  at  all? 

The  first  answer  to  be  suggested  comes  from 
early  Semitic  religion.  It  is  evident  that  early  Sem- 
itic religion  was  full  of  divine  and  semi-divine 
beings.  Schultz  regards  the  Elohim  of  the  early 
Hebrew  writings  as  plain  traces  of  such  beings  (Gen. 
i.  26;  Exod.  23.  23;  Gen.  6.  1,  fT. ;  Psa.  29.  1,  etc.). 
He  says,  "It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  these  rep- 
resent the  gods  of  the  old  Semitic  religion,  who  have 
shriveled  up  into  subordinate  heavenly  beings."1 
Nor  are  we  left  to  Old  Testament  sources  alone.  The 
Arabic  jinn  seem  to  be  representatives  of  kindred 
early  Semitic  conceptions.  One  is  compelled  to  be- 
lieve also  that  the  early  and  extensive  cult  of  the  zi  in 
Babylonia  was  not  without  its  influence  on  Hebrew 
thought,  even  if  its  origin  be  Sumerian  rather  than 
Semitic.  That  all  this  mass  of  divine  beings  was 
simply  blotted  out  of  existence  by  the  rise  of 
Mosaism  we  can  no  longer  suppose.  The  history 
of  religion  does  not  progress  that  way.     No  case 

1  Old  Testament  Theology,  II,  a  is,  Eng.  tr. 
29 


The  Spirit  of  God 

parallel  to  such  a  result  can  be  found.  Moreover, 
the  passages  cited  above  show  that  these  beings  had 
a  long  existence  as  subordinate  to  Jahveh.  Now, 
in  the  process  of  syncretism  which  every  religion 
is  liable  to  undergo  one  of  two  things  takes  place: 
The  divine  beings  which  are  for  any  reason  of  less 
importance  may  be  absorbed  into  the  personality 
of  the  more  important,  and  become  mere  phases  of 
their  manifestation.  This  is  partly  the  history  of 
syncretism  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia  and  in  some 
of  the  Vishnu  avatars  of  modern  Hinduism.  Or 
these  lesser  divine  beings  may  become  the  servants 
and  messengers  of  some  of  the  greater  gods.  In- 
stead of  losing  their  personality  they  are,  in  anthro- 
pomorphic fashion,  set  in  personal  relations  to  those 
who  have  usurped  their  place.  This  we  find  in 
Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  Greece.  It  is  a  peculiarity 
of  the  Saivite  development  in  modern  Hinduism  as 
over  against  the  Vaishnuvite  development.  Fre- 
quently both  movements  are  found  in  the  same  re- 
ligion, as  is  probably  the  case  in  both  Egypt  and 
Babylonia,  where  the  histories  of  Osiris  and  Marduk 
seem  to  represent  the  former  and  the  relations  of 
Horus  to  Ra  and  of  Nebo  to  Marduk  the  latter. 

Can  we  detect  either  of  these  movements  in  the 
half-obliterated  traces  of  early  Hebrew  syncretism? 
Gen.  i.  26  and  3.  22  might  suggest  a  tendency  to 
the  absorption  of  different  deities  into  the  same  per- 
sonality, but  it  is  doubtful  if  these  passages  are  best 
explained  in  this  way.  Much  more  clear  are  traces 
of  subordination.     Gen.  6.  1-6;  Psa.  29.  1;  86.  8 

30 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

may  be  explained  by  this  idea.  This  tendency  of 
syncretism  early  disappeared  under  the  jealous  iso- 
lation of  Jahveh  as  the  one  God  of  Israel.  The 
references  from  Psalms  given  above  are  the  linger- 
ing echoes  of  a  former  faith,  used  to  express  a 
present  belief  in  the  absolute  supremacy  of  Jah- 
veh. Mosaism  had  no  room  even  for  divine  serv- 
ants of  Jahveh,  much  less  for  a  son.  The  gods  of 
other  nations  are  recognized,  but  are  not  placed 
in  any  organic  relation  to  Jahveh  (Judg.  n.  24; 
Exod.  15.  11).  It  seems  possible,  however,  that  in 
the  transition  from  the  older  polytheism,  which  we 
are  compelled  to  posit  as  the  Semitic  background 
of  the  Hebrew  religion,  to  the  new  henotheistic 
position  of  Jahvism  there  may  have  been  a  stage 
when  the  subordination  of  the  divine  beings  to 
Jahveh  played  a  more  important  part  than  the  lit- 
erary period  of  the  Hebrew  religion  reveals.  If 
so,  it  will  help  account  for  the  somewhat  strange 
phenomenon  of  a  religion  with  strong  tendencies 
toward  monotheism,  yet  using  with  perfect  freedom 
the  idea  of  a  Spirit  of  God,  or  even  of  a  spirit  from 
God,  figured  as  in  1  Kings  22.  21,  f.,  as  a  distinct 
personality  which  Jahveh  might  send  on  his  be- 
hests. It  will  help  account  for  the  semi-hypostasis 
of  the  Spirit,  which  always  introduces  an  element 
of  vagueness  into  its  use  in  this  period  of  Hebrew 
thought.  On  this  supposition  the  phrase,  together 
with  some  fringes  of  polydemonistic  meaning, 
comes  from  a  period  when  a  multitude  of  divine 
beings  were  somewhat   more  distinctly   conceived 

3i 


The  Spirit  of  God 

than  even  in  the  earliest  period  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture— conceived,  however,  not  as  independent, 
but  as  subordinate  in  personality  and  power  to 
Jahveh. 

But  if  this  aids  us  to  understand  the  notion  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  or  the  spirit  from  God,  of  Spirit 
as  the  medium  of  activity  in  distinction  from  God 
as  the  actor,  it  still  leaves  the  notion  of  Spirit  itself 
to  be  explained. 

Here  etymology  will  assist  us.  The  Spirit,  used 
for  the  active  power  of  God,  is  the  breath1  of  God. 
The  divine  psychology  of  the  term,  if  we  may  use 
such  a  phrase,  rests,  as  all  scholars  see,  upon  its 
human  psychology.  The  breath  was  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  active  life.  In  excitement  it  came  more 
quickly.  With  vigorous  activity,  running,  severe 
exertion  of  any  kind,  it  became  fuller,  stronger, 
more  rapid.  In  sleep  it  was  slower,  and  in  death 
it  disappeared  altogether.  It  offered  itself  as  the 
most  obvious  measure  of  vital  activity.  In  this  it 
contrasted  with  the  blood.  "The  blood  is  the  life" 
is  perhaps  as  old  a  generalization  as  that  the  breath 
is  the  life.  But  blood  differs  from  breath  in  two 
important  ways:  First,  it  is  always  material,  and 
does  not  suggest  an  invisible  power  connected  with 
life;  second,  it  is  not  possible  to  think  of  it  as 
something  which  may  be  sent  out,  and  so  it  is  more 
appropriate  as  a  symbol  of  the  static  than  of  the 

1  Wendt  {Fleisch  und  Geist)  carries  it  back  a  step  farther,  to  the  wind  (p. 
41).  It  seems  doubtful  whether  the  living  breath  is  not  more  close  to  the 
basal  idea  than  the  invisible,  immaterial  wind.  Early  religious  ideas  more 
often  start  with  a  conception  of  a  living  power  than  with  a  lifeless  force. 

32 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

dynamic  life.  Thus  we  find  it  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  never  used  of  the  divine  life  at  all, 
though  there  is  no  inherent  reason  why  it  should 
not  be,  as  well  as  the  hands  or  the  feet  or  the  heart. 
When  used  of  man  it  is  never  in  the  sense  of  psy- 
chical activity.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  use 
is  in  Gen.  4.  10,  "The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood 
crieth  unto  me  from  the  ground,"  where  the  very 
strength  of  the  figure  lies  in  the  powerlessness  of 
the  passive  life,  represented  by  the  blood,  to  accom- 
plish its  own  vengeance. 

As  we  have  already  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  the  use  of  the  term  "spirit  of  man"  as 
applied  to  man  soon  broadens  out  from  one  sense 
into  others,  and  we  have  the  spirit  as  meaning  the 
essential  life  of  man.  Still  it  differs  from  the  use 
of  blood  in  being  his  essential  life  as  a  conscious 
soul  rather  than  as  a  physical  being. 

It  is  now  easy  to  pass  to  the  use  of  the  term 
"spirit"  as  descriptive  of  the  divine  life.  1.  Direct 
anthropomorphism  would  lead  to  the  use  of  the 
same  term  to  describe  the  divine  life  as  was  used 
to  describe  the  human  life.  God  is  like  man.  But, 
since  God  is  an  immaterial  and  invisible  being,  the 
term  connoting  the  relatively  immaterial  and  in- 
visible elements  of  human  life  would  naturally  be 
used  of  him.  2.  Since  early  man  was  everywhere 
interested  in  the  activity  of  God  rather  than  in  his 
passive  life,  that  term  would  be  chosen  which  was 
most  closely  connected  with  man's  activity  of  life. 
Thus  the  direct  anthropomorphism  found  in  all 
(3)  33 


The  Spirit  of  God 

early  religion  led  to  the  use  of  the  term  "spirit"  for 
the  activity  of  God. 

Can  we  now  build  the  different  results  of  our  in- 
vestigation into  an  explanation  of  the  particular 
central  idea  of  the  early  Hebrew  usage — that  of 
the  Spirit  as  the  cause  of  prophecy  and  of  other 
like  inexplicable  phenomena?  It  would  seem  to 
be  possible  to  do  this.  These  phenomena  were  re- 
garded as  manifestations  of  a  direct  contact  between 
God  and  man.  They  came  and  went  independently 
of  visible  or  audible  cause.  They  constituted  a 
vivid  experience  to  those  who  were  their  subjects. 
Sometimes  they  were  even  almost  unwelcome. 
Compare  the  "calls"  of  the  great  prophets,  every 
one  of  which  implies  almost  a  dread  of  the  divine 
afflatus.  At  all  times  these  experiences  had,  even 
to  the  subjects  of  them,  a  certain  fearsome  quality. 
They  were  inexplicable  and  uncanny,  but  very  in- 
tense, very  real.  Their  explanation  could  only  be 
in  a  connection  with  God  as  intense  and  real  as  was 
the  experience.  The  term  which  denoted  active 
divine  energy,  vital  but  invisible,  was  peculiarly 
appropriate  for  the  explanation  of  these  phenom- 
ena. The  most  immaterial  term  that  the  language 
possessed  was  the  most  fitting  for  such  mysterious 
movings  of  divinity.  It  was  never  even  forgotten 
that  back  of  the  term  stood  the  figure  of  the 
breath,  the  same  element  as  the  wind,  whose  mys- 
terious changes  and  invisible  motion  but  served  to 
add  power  to  the  figure.  Even  as  late  as  the  gospel 
of  John  we  have  still  the  memory  of  these  two  ele- 

34 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

ments  of  the  figure:  "Jesus  breathed  on  them  and 
said,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit ;"  "The  wind  blow- 
eth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  voice 
thereof,  but  knowest  not  whence  it  cometh  and 
whither  it  goeth :  so  is  everyone  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit." 

At  the  same  time  this  psychical  conception,  with 
its  roots  in  anthropomorphism,  was  strengthened 
by  a  religious  conception,  with  its  roots  in  polyde- 
monism.  Subordinate  divine  beings  were  messen- 
gers of  God,  and  might  be  sent  hither  and  yon  on 
his  bidding.  As  Jahveh's  personality  becomes 
more  clear  theirs  become  more  shadowy,  until 
finally  they  almost  disappear  from  view,  and  all  their 
functions  become  absorbed  by  this  expression  for 
the  active  God.  And  so  two  forces  working  inde- 
pendently unite  to  lay  the  foundations  for  a  semi- 
hypostasis  of  the  activity  of  God.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising if  this  double  origin  causes  certain  elements 
of  vagueness  in  the  later  structure  of  Hebrew 
thought. 

Thus  we  account  for  the  conception  of  the  Spirit 
as  God  active  in  those  extraordinary  phenomena  of 
human  life  which  constituted  early  prophetic  ex- 
perience. This  was  doubtless  the  earliest  phase  of 
the  idea.  But  there  is  another  element  which  seems 
to  have  lain  in  Hebrew  thought  in  the  pre-literary 
period.  It  is  that  of  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  the 
entire  rational  life.  What  were  the  steps  which  led 
to  this  stage  of  thought?  They  were  examples  of 
early  philosophizing.     Men  soon  found  that  the  ex- 

35 


The  Spirit  of  God 

traordinary  was  not  the  only  range  of  life  which 
needed  explanation.  Life  itself,  as  well  as  the 
strange  ecstasy  of  prophecy,  needed  a  cause.  The 
same  course  of  thought  was  in  progress  in  all  grow- 
ing civilizations.  The  best  example  outside  of 
Hebrew  thought  is  that  of  India.  The  Hindu  and 
the  Hebrew  alike  were  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
life  of  man,  with  all  its  phenomena,  both  ordinary 
and  extraordinary,  was  due  to  the  activity  of  God. 
The  Hebrew  had  what  the  Hindu  had  not — a  term 
which  expressed  the  active  God,  and  which  was 
already  closely  connected  with  that  activity  as 
shown  in  the  psychic  life  of  man.  It  was  easy  for 
him,  by  the  use  of  this  term,  to  affirm  that  God 
was  the  cause  of  the  life  of  man,  even  that  the  life 
of  man  was  itself  the  breath  of  God,  thus  making 
the  closest  possible  connection  between  God  and 
man  that  could  be  made  without  the  assumption  of 
identity,  and  yet  not  to  affirm  that  God  was  man 
or  that  man  was  God.  The  temptation  to  panthe- 
ism was  thus  avoided,  even  had  the  Hebrew  been 
more  inclined  to  philosophize  than  he  was.  The 
Hindu  had  no  such  convenient  distinction.  He  was 
feeling  after  the  same  truth  of  a  close  relation  of 
God  to  man.  He  could  only  say,  however,  that  the 
life  of  man  was  the  life  of  God;  which,  after  all, 
is  exactly  what  the  Hebrew  said,  but  in  different 
language.  That  difference  of  language  makes 
much  difference  in  the  history  of  thought.  The 
Hindu  could  logically  reach  by  his  expression  noth- 
ing but  pantheism,  with  its  inevitable  outcome  of 

36 


The  Origin  of  the  Conception 

Vedanta  and  Maya.  The  Hebrew,  without  con- 
scious philosophy  and  yet  with  perfect  logic,  could 
reach  the  conception  of  a  transcendent  God  at  the 
same  time  immanent  in  the  world  of  human  con- 
sciousness, and  therefore  in  the  world  of  external 
nature  as  well. 

The  origins  of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  lie  in  the 
common  ground  of  early  religious  concepts.  The 
growth  of  it  may  be  explained  by  laws  which  we 
find  working  in  all  early  religions.  Its  peculiarity 
is  that  it  started  very  early  along  a  line  of  develop- 
ment which  is,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  only  line 
that  could  have  prepared  it  to  receive  the  rich  re- 
ligious content  with  which  Judaism  and  Christian- 
ity later  filled  it.  If  there  is  ever  a  providence  in 
the  history  of  human  thought,  surely  here  is  a  place 
where  it  may  be  seen. 

37 


CHAPTER  m 

The  Canonical  Writings  after  the  Exile 

The  post-exilic  literature  presents  a  much  more 
complicated  field  of  study  in  our  subject  than  does 
the  pre-exilic  literature.  This  is  partly  due  to  the 
wider  range  of  thought  expressed  in  it,  partly  to  the 
difficulty  of  dating  certain  portions  of  it,  but  mainly 
to  the  fact  that  the  term  "the  Spirit  of  God"  had 
lost  its  former  simplicity  of  meaning,  and  was  used 
of  a  wider  variety  of  phenomena,  but  had  not  yet  ac- 
quired the  somewhat  clear  definition  that  it  did  at 
a  later  period.  Such  a  time  of  more  or  less  con- 
fusion of  meaning  is  not  uncommon  at  the  period 
when  a  term  passes  from  the  unreflective  use  to  the 
beginning  of  a  more  philosophic  use. 

To  make  a  satisfactory  classification  of  Hebrew 
and  Jewish  literature  after  the  exile  is  not  easy. 
For  our  purpose,  however,  it  will  divide  fairly  well 
into  three  sections:  Post-exilic  literature  to  the 
Greek  period;  Palestinian- Judaistic  literature  after 
the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period ;  and  Alexandrian- 
Judaistic  literature.  This  chapter  will  be  devoted 
to  the  first  period,  the  writings  of  which  will  be 
designated  simply  as  post-exilic  Hebrew  literature. 

In  this  literature  we  find  the  following  uses  of 
the  "Spirit  of  God"  or  the  "Spirit  of  Jahveh:"1 

1  The  following  classification  follows,  as  far  as  possible,  the  form  of  that 
of  the  pre-exilic  writings,  given  on  p.  5,  ff. 

38 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

A.  Spirit  used  of  God  acting  in  the  sphere  of  in- 
dividual rational  life: 

i.  For  endowment  of  individuals  with  charis- 
matic gifts: 

(a)  Prophecy:  Num.  II.  29  (P)  ;  Ezek.  2.  2; 
3.  12,  14,  24;  8.  3;  11.  1,  5,  24;1  37.  1;  43.  5; 
Neh.  9.  30;  1  Chron.  12.  18;  2  Chron.  15.  1;  20. 
14;  24.  20;  Isa.  48.  16  (perhaps)  ;  61.  I  (if  refer- 
ring to  a  prophet). 

(b)  Skill  in  ruling:  Num.  11.  17;  27.  18  (P). 

(c)  Skill  in  artisan  work:  Exod.  28.  3;  31.  3; 
35.  31  (P)  (all  refer  to  one  person,  Bezaleel). 

(d)  Prowess  in  war:  Judg.  11.  29. 

(e)  Wisdom:  Deut.  34.  9  (P) ;  Job  32.  8;  33. 

4(?). 

2.  As  the  basis  of  human  life.  This  list  is  made 
to  include  both  the  rational  and  the  physical  life. 
In  many  cases  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  be- 
tween them.  The  Hebrew  writers  of  this  period 
often  treated  man  as  a  unit,  and  conceived  of  the 
Spirit  as  the  basis  of  his  life  quite  without  refer- 
ence to  the  distinction  of  physical  and  mental:  Isa. 
42.  5;  Job  27.  3;  33.  4;  34.  14;  Zech.  12.  1;  Mai. 
2.  15  (?);2  Num.  16.  22;  27.  16;  Eccles.  3.  21 
(comp.  12.  7).3 

B.  Spirit  used  for  God  acting  in  the  physical 
world  and  in  the  development  of  human  history : 


1  Cornill  regards  as  a  gloss. 

*  For  text  of  this  obscure  passage  see  Smith.  Book  of  Twelve  Prophets. 


p.  364.  note:  Wendt.  Fleisch  und  Geist  p.  36;  Nowack.  Kleine  Propheten. 
•Ecclesiastes  is  treated  in  this  period  because,  even  if  written  slightly 
;ht  ii 
ine  c 

39 


later,  its  general  attitude  of  thought  is  conservative:  as,  for  example,  its 
skepticism  regarding  the  new  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 


The  Spirit  of  God 

i.  Acting  on  external  nature  apart  from  man: 
Job  26.  13;  Gen.  1.  2  (P) ;  Psa.  33.  6;1  104.  30. 

2.  Guiding  or  influencing  in  the  field  of  human 
actions.  In  these  books  it  always  has  to  do  with 
the  past  or  the  future  of  Israel.  It  shades  off  into 
the  distinctly  Messianic  use: 

(a)  Of  Israel's  past  history:  Isa.  63.  10,  II, 
14;  Neh.  9.  20;  Psa.  106.  33. 

(b)  Of  the  Messiah :  Isa.  11.  2,  4. 

(c)  Of  the  "Servant  of  Jahveh,"  in  whom  the 
Spirit  is  a  present  possession:  Isa.  42.  1;  59.  21; 
61.  1  (if  of  the  Servant)  (comp.  Psa.  51.  13  [Eng. 
12] ;  143.  10.  If  these  psalms  are  national,  the 
use  is  still  the  same). 

(d)  Of  the  future  of  Israel  (that  is,  a  Messianic 
promise):  Psa.  143.  10;  Ezek.  11.  19;  36.  26,  2y\ 
37.  14;  39.  29;  Isa.  4.  4;  32.  15;  34.  16;  44.  3; 
Zech.  4.  6;  12.  10;  Joel  3.  1,  2  (Eng.  2.  28,  29) 
(comp.  Psa.  51.  11;  143.  10). 

C.  Spirit  used  in  a  general  way  of  the  plan  or 
purpose  of  God  in  relation  to  man:  Isa.  40.  13. 

D.  Spirit  used  in  the  sphere  of  the  religious  life : 
Psa.  51.  11,  12  (Eng.  10,  11)  ;  143.  10;  139.  7. 

On  page  7  attention  was  directed  to  certain  con- 
clusions from  the  pre-exilic  use  of  Spirit.  Com- 
paring the  passages  noted  above  with  the  treatment 
there,  we  find: 

1.  In  pre-exilic  literature  Spirit  was  never  used 
of  God  ab  intra.    Here  there  is  an  approach  to  such 


1  This  passage  denotes  the  power  of  God  under  the  figure  of  the  breath, 
the  double  meaning  of  fll^  allowing  this  use. 

40 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

a  use,  though  only  once.  In  Psa.  139.  7  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  parallel  with  the  "presence"  (nc).  Both 
are  figurative  expressions,  used  pleonastically  for 
God,  considered  not  dynamically  but  statically. 
Not  activity  but  omniscience  is  here  posited  of  the 
divine  Spirit.  During  this  period  the  spirit  came 
to  be  used  statically  of  man,  to  indicate  his  per- 
sonality (Eccles.  3.  21;  comp.  Num.  16.  22).  An 
extension  of  the  same  psychological  use  is  here  made 
to  the  divine  Spirit. 

2.  There  Spirit  was  always  used  of  God  acting, 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  relation  to  man.  Here  it 
is  not.  God's  action  in  creation  and  in  the  ordinary 
processes  of  external  nature  is  here  assigned  to  the 
Spirit,  quite  apart  from  any  bearing  which  these 
may  have  on  human  life  (see  Job  26.  13;  Psa.  104. 

29;  33-  6). 

3.  There  the  dominant  idea  is  the  charismatic. 
Here  the  charismatic  no  longer  holds  such  promi- 
nence. The  change  in  the  main  emphasis  may  be 
traced  in  the  literature  of  the  period  itself.  In 
Ezekiel  the  Spirit  of  prophetic  inspiration  is  still 
prominent.  The  usage  occurs  ten  times  (nine  if  11. 
24  is  discarded  as  a  gloss).  As  prophecy  disappears, 
this  phase  of  experience  passes  into  historic  memory, 
and  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  or 
medium  of  individual  gifts  tends  to  decline  with 
it.  The  dominant  thought  then  becomes  more  diffi- 
cult to  name.  Instead  of  one  idea  overshadowing 
all  others,  we  discover  two  quite  different  concepts 
of  approximately  equal  prominence  in  the  literature, 

41 


The  Spirit  of  God 

and  both  of  great  value  for  the  future  history  of 
religion :  One  is  the  Spirit  as  the  first  cause  and  con- 
trolling power  in  the  external  world;  the  other,  the 
Spirit  as  the  guide  of  Israel's  past  history  and  the 
force  that  will  shape  its  future  destiny.  In  the  last 
phase  it  becomes  the  name  for  God's  activity  in  the 
Messianic  time. 

4.  The  concept  of  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  hu- 
man life,  without  separation  between  the  rational 
and  the  physical,  now  rises  into  importance.  The 
thought  had  already  appeared  in  the  earlier  writ- 
ings (Gen.  6.  3).  Two  things  tended  to  develop 
the  idea  in  later  literature :  One  was  the  tendency  to 
expand  an  idea  from  a  narrow  to  a  wider  range, 
which  we  have  already  noted  as  at  work  in  this 
field;  the  other  was  the  growing  attention  to  the 
question  of  origins,  a  part  of  the  philosophizing 
development  of  the  human  race  which  even  Hebrew 
thought  did  not  wholly  escape. 

In  the  study  of  the  earlier  literature  emphasis  was 
laid  on  the  close  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  the 
extraordinary  in  life.  The  Spirit  was  there  seldom 
used  except  as  the  source  of  unusual  phenomena, 
while,  conversely,  unusual  phenomena,  when  consid- 
ered in  their  religious  aspect,  might  almost  always  be 
explained  as  caused  by  the  Spirit.  We  found  also 
that  the  predominant  use  of  the  Spirit  was  in  con- 
nection with  individual  endowment.  Its  significance 
was  grounded  ultimately  in  experience.  It  was  the 
interpretation  of  the  feeling  of  uplift  and  inspira- 
tion, perhaps  even  simply  of  mystery,  accompanying 

42 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

certain  experiences  and  emotions  that  strongly  af- 
fected those  who  were  subject  to  them.  In  post- 
exilic  literature  the  idea  of  individual  endowment 
was,  as  we  have  seen  above,  not  so  prominent.  The 
cruder  conceptions  tended  to  disappear.  No  case  of 
bodily  strength  was  assigned  to  the  Spirit,  as  in 
the  stories  of  Samson.  The  instance  apparently 
most  nearly  parallel  to  this  is  the  ascription  of  the 
skill  of  Bezaleel  to  the  Spirit  (Exod.  28.  3  et  al), 
but  this,  as  will  be  seen  later,  represented  a  national 
rather  than  an  individual  relation  to  the  Spirit. 
The  same  is  true  of  Joshua's  skill  in  ruling  (Num. 
27.  18).  There  is  left  only  wisdom  and  prophecy. 
Wisdom  is  an  endowment  of  the  Spirit  only  in  the 
Wisdom  literature,  and  in  connection  with  the  con- 
ception of  wisdom  as  divine  in  essence.  The  only 
clear  passage  on  this  subject  is  Prov.  1.  23:  "I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  you."  It  means,  as 
the  parallel,  "I  will  make  known  my  words  unto 
you,"  shows,  "I  will  utter  myself  to  you"  (Toy 
in  loco).  The  phrase  and  the  idea  are  both  directly 
borrowed  from  prophecy.  While  the  endowment  is 
clearly  wisdom,  the  method  of  endowment  is  ex- 
pressed in  a  way  entirely  analogous  to  prophetic 
usage. 

The  peculiar  physical  accompaniments  of  pro- 
phetic inspiration  had  disappeared  from  the  work  of 
at  least  the  more  valued  prophets  of  Israel,  but  the 
tradition  of  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Spirit 
had  remained.  It  is  certain  that  even  in  the  pre- 
exilic  time  the  prophets  whose  writings  were  pre- 

43 


The  Spirit  of  God 

served  were  conscious  of  a  mental  experience 
which  was  to  them  not  less  supernatural  than  were 
the  physical,  dervish-like  manifestations  of  the 
earliest  Hebrew  prophecy.  The  feeling  of  the  im- 
perativeness of  his  message  which  Amos  expresses 
in  3.  3-8  can  thus  best  be  explained.  This  also  gives 
a  hint  of  what  the  experience  was  through  which 
God  revealed  "his  secret  unto  his  servants  the 
prophets."  They  had  a  perception  which  consti- 
tuted for  them  a  message.  The  clearness  of  this 
perception  was  the  proof  to  them  that  it  came  from 
the  Spirit  of  Jehovah.  Its  character,  as  a  percep- 
tion of  truths  lying  mainly  in  the  field  of  the  in- 
tellectual, made  the  phrase  "God  spake' '  most 
natural.  But  doubtless  we  should  not  do  justice 
to  this  experience  if  we  merely  regarded  it  as  an 
intellectual  perception  with  a  moral  content.  That 
it  had  a  content  of  emotion  as  well,  we  must  be- 
lieve. The  vividness  and  compelling  power  of  the 
conviction  can  be  explained  in  no  other  way.  The 
prophetic  writings  are  also  full  of  expressions  which 
are  strongly  emotional. 

This  powerful  conviction  with  its  accompaniment 
of  a  strong  emotion  was  not  resolved  by  the 
prophet  into  elements  of  patriotism,  reflection, 
logic,  and  religious  feeling,  but  taken  entire,  just 
as  he  experienced  it,  for  a  divine  gift.  It  was  not 
for  him  the  labored  working  of  a  human  mind, 
but  the  direct  inbreathing  of  God  himself.  In  the 
early  post-exilic  times  this  experience  was  still  felt, 
and  so  long  as  it  was,  the  Spirit  was  regarded  as 

44 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

its  origin.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Spirit  was 
still  confined  to  experiences  of  strongly  emotional 
content,  expressed  in  traditional  terms  of  bodily 
meaning.  The  Spirit  "falls  upon"  the  prophet 
(Ezek.  ii.  5),  "enters  into"  him  (2.  2),  "takes" 
him  "up"  (3.  12),  "carries"  him  "away"  (3.  14), 
but  never  speaks.  God  speaks.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment this  distinction  is  lost,  and  the  Spirit  is  re- 
garded as  speaking  through  the  prophet  (for  exam- 
ple, Acts  1.  16).  It  will  be  noted  that  all  the  pas- 
sages above  are  drawn  from  Ezekiel.  He  is  the  last 
prophet  who  expressed  his  emotional  experience  in 
this  form,  and  in  this  respect  he  belongs  to  the 
period  of  pre-exilic  rather  than  of  post-exilic  re- 
ligious thought. 

With  the  exile  began  the  period  of  reflection  upon 
the  nation's  past.  Now  the  older  historic  writings 
were  reedited  in  the  spirit  of  a  reflective  moral  crit- 
icism. The  traditional  thought  that  God  had 
guided  the  nation  now  came  with  new  force.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  the  Spirit  was  used  of  that  guid- 
ance. It  was  the  strongest  term  the  Hebrew  pos- 
sessed for  the  activity  of  God.  Another  element 
tending  to  this  use  is  that  the  reflection  on  the  past 
national  history  was  all  passed  through  the  filter 
of  prophetic  thought.  Even  the  editors  of  the 
priestly  codes  were  indebted  to  the  pre-exilic  proph- 
ets for  their  general  ideas  of  God's  relation  to 
Israel  in  the  past.  Even  the  most  priestly  writers 
were  therefore  in  a  measure  the  disciples  of  the 
prophets.  Now,  to  all  disciples  of  the  prophets  God's 

45 


The  Spirit  of  God 

guidance  of  the  nation  seemed  to  come  largely 
through  the  prophets,  that  is,  according  to  tradi- 
tional conceptions,  through  the  Spirit  of  Jahveh 
(comp.  Neh.  9.  30).  From  the  guidance  of  God 
by  his  Spirit  in  the  prophets  it  is  a  short  and  easy 
step  which  is  taken  by  the  authors  of  Psa.  106.  33; 
Isa.  63.  10-14;  and  Neh.  9.  20,  when  they  speak  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  in  Moses  for  the  direction  of 
Israel.  In  fact,  this  .is  hardly  an  advance  at  all, 
for  already  Deut.  18.  18  assumes  that  Moses  was 
a  prophet.  There  seems,  however,  to  be  in  these 
passages  the  reflection  of  a  thought  somewhat  wider 
than  merely  that  of  the  prophetic  inspiration  of 
Moses.  The  thought  seems  to  center  about  God's 
general  attitude  toward  Israel  rather  than  about 
Moses  as  the  special  medium  of  God's  action.  In 
Neh.  9.  20  the  Spirit  for  instruction  is  coupled  with 
manna  and  water.  In  Psa.  106.  33,  so  far  from 
making  prominent  the  divine  inspiration  of  Moses, 
the  writer  has  in  mind  the  human  frailty  of  Moses's 
rash  speech.  In  Isa.  63.  10-14  the  thought  is  still 
more  distinctly  of  the  general  providential  guidance 
of  Israel. 

If  we  question  what  is  the  significance  of  the  fact 
that,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Isa.  63.  io,1  all 
references  to  the  past  guidance  of  Israel  by  the 
Spirit  relate  to  the  period  of  the  wilderness  wan- 
derings, we  shall  find  the  answer  lying  in  the  con- 
ception of  Hebrew  history  quite  as  much  as  in  the 

1  If  this  passage  also  refers  to  the  wilderness  wanderings,  there  is  no  ex- 
ception. 

46 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

doctrine  of  the  Spirit.  The  Mosaic  period  was  that 
to  which  Hebrew  thought  always  turned  most 
readily  when  it  considered  the  care  of  God  in  the 
nation's  history,  as  in  Mic.  6.  4,  5;  Psa.  135.  8-14. 
To  this  period  it  was  easy  to  assign  special  workings 
of  the  Spirit.  All  religions  are  prone  to  find  the 
activity  of  God  specially  manifest  in  those  periods 
of  the  distant  past  which  are  glorified  by  heroic 
legends.  This  also  furnishes  the  explanation  of 
P's  use  of  the  Spirit  for  artisan  inspiration.  It 
was  no  derogation  of  divine  dignity  that  an  artisan 
of  the  distant  past,  when  Jahveh  so  manifestly  led 
his  people,  should  be  considered  under  the  control 
of  the  Spirit  when  engaged  in  work  connected  with 
Jahveh's  worship.  This  is  plainly  traditional  de- 
velopment, not  grounded  in  the  facts  of  experience. 
The  like  is  assumed  in  no  other  case  in  the  Old 
Testament,  nor  in  any  other  Jewish  literature. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  any  Hebrew  artisan  ever 
regarded  himself,  or  that  his  contemporaries  ever 
regarded  him,  as  under  the  control  of  the  Spirit. 
It  is  not  correct  to  imply  that  the  Hebrew  artisan's 
labor  might  be  regarded  as  the  fitting  subject  of  the 
Spirit's  inspiration.  That  an  artisan  in  a  time  of 
special  divine  guidance  of  the  nation,  concerned  in 
a  special  religious  work,  is  regarded  in  a  late 
priestly  writing  as  having  been  directed  by  the 
Spirit,  by  no  means  justifies  such  a  statement. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  experience  of  ordinary  arti- 
san labor  that  would  suggest  a  belief  in  its  inspi- 
ration, and  living  ideas  of  inspiration  have  always 

47 


The  Spirit  of  God 

been  determined  by  the  interpretation  of  actual 
experience.  The  same  principles  will  apply  to  the 
representation  of  the  Spirit  as  imparting  skill  in 
ruling  which  P  gives  in  Num.  27.  18. 

The  charismatic  Spirit  is  more  clearly  confined 
to  endowments  for  direct  religious  purposes  here 
than  in  pre-exilic  literature.  What  has  just  been 
said  shows  that  the  cases  of  artisan  labor  and  of 
skill  in  ruling  cannot  be  regarded  as  secular.  The 
literature  presents  us  with  no  other  charismatic  en- 
dowments except  prophecy  and  wisdom,  both  of 
which  were  strongly  religious. 

Of  greater  importance  than  all  other  changes  is 
the  rise  of  a  new  use  of  Spirit  which  connects  it 
with  the  personal  character,  the  ethical-religious 
use  as  distinguished  from  the  emotional-religious 
and  the  ceremonial-religious.  It  is  true  that  the 
cases  of  Spirit  used  in  this  sense  are  few,  but  they 
indicate  with  sufficient  clearness  the  existence  of 
this  factor  in  Hebrew  thought.  It  is  true  also  that 
the  only  clear  passages,  Psa.  51.  11,  12;  143.  io,1 
are  in  psalms  whose  interpretation  is  in  question. 
If  they  refer  to  national  rather  than  to  individual 
experiences,  it  would  seem  at  first  sight  that  they 
do  not  belong  in  this  classification,  and  that  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  Hebrew  thought  had  even  yet 
taken  this  important  step.  But  if  the  author  of 
Psa.  51  "spoke  in  the  name  of  the  church"  (Cheyne, 
Bampton  Lectures,  page  161),  it  still  remains  true 

1  Tf  the  date  of  Cheyne  be  accepted,  Psa.  143  would  fall  in  the  next  period 
(Post-Persian.  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  66),  but  Psa.  51  would  still  fall  in  this 
period  (Restoration,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  162). 

48 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

that  he,  as  also  the  author  of  Psa.  143,  uses  the 
figures  of  individual  life  in  which  to  clothe  his 
thought.  The  subject  of  the  poems  is  conscious  of 
sin,  his  spirit  faints,  his  soul  longs  for  God  as  a 
weary  land,  he  flees  to  God,  he  rejoices  in  forgive- 
ness. Nothing  in  these  psalms  stands  opposed  to 
a  personal  interpretation,  whether  literal  or  figur- 
ative. The  Psalms  lie  within  the  range  of  personal 
experience,  and  can  only  be  explained  as  national 
under  the  supposition  of  a  personal  experience  trans- 
ferred to  the  nation.  Whether  the  Psalms  are 
national  or  not,  then,  does  not  affect  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit.  That  interpreta- 
tion remains  personal. 

In  a  general  way  the  transition  to  this  ethical- 
religious  conception  is  clear.  It  follows  inevitably 
from  the  exilic  consciousness,  such  as  Ezek.  18  and 
33  reveal,  of  a  personal  relation  to  God.  It  is  the 
logical  outcome,  in  minds  strongly  imbued  with 
religious  thought,  of  the  newly  perceived  idea  of 
personal  worth.  But  such  a  general  statement  does 
not  satisfy  the  demand  for  genetic  analysis.  When 
we  examine  more  closely,  four  ways  by  which  the 
idea  may  have  taken  shape  suggest  themselves : 

1.  The  Spirit  may  have  been  used  of  the  origin  of 
physical  life;  then,  as  religious  consciousness  grew, 
it  may  have  been  transferred  from  the  origin  of 
physical  life  to  the  origin  of  religious  life.  This 
would  be  growth  by  analogy. 

2.  There  may  have  been  a  growing  tendency  to 
use  the  Spirit  of  God  only  for  phenomena  of  clearly 

(4)'  49 


The  Spirit  of  God 

religious  value.  Then  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
working  in  man  may  have  become  in  a  kindred  way- 
limited  specially  to  the  religious  consciousness. 
This  would  be  growth  by  limitation. 

3.  At  the  same  time  that  the  religious  conscious- 
ness of  the  Hebrew  grew,  the  physical  phenomena 
which  had  formerly  been  referred  to  the  Spirit  de- 
creased. The  term  formerly  used  of  the  origin  of 
these  physical  phenomena  may  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  ethical-religious,  as  being  now  the  dom- 
inant element  in  the  thought  of  divine  activity.  This 
would  be  growth  by  transference  between  phases 
of  personal  experience.  This  differs  from  the 
change  noted  under  1  in  connecting  the  origin  of 
this  use  with  the  charismatic  rather  than  with  the 
cosmical  idea. 

4.  National  religious  life  had  come  to  be  con- 
ceived as  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
As  personal  religious  consciousness  grew,  the  per- 
sonal religious  life,  like  the  national,  may  have 
come  to  be  considered  as  under  the  same  guidance 
of  the  Spirit.  This  would  be  growth  by  transfer- 
ence of  idea  from  national  to  individual  life. 

All  of  these  may  have  been  factors  of  develop- 
ment. Our  knowledge  of  the  steps  of  progress  in 
Hebrew  thought  is  so  slight  that  it  would  be  rash 
to  exclude  any  of  them.  We  can,  however,  say  as 
much  as  this :  that  the  transition  of  the  idea  of  the 
Spirit  from  national  to  individual  life  was  very 
probably  a  large  factor  in  this  development.  Cer- 
tainly in  the  minds  of  some  the  working  of  the 

50 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

Spirit  in  the  nation's  life  had  come  to  be  predom- 
inantly ethical-religious.  Such  was  largely  Ezekiel's 
idea,  even  with  all  his  priestly  tendencies  (see,  for 
example,  36.  16-38).  Nor  was  it  a  prophetic  nov- 
elty. Its  germs  go  back  to  the  eighth  century  proph- 
ets. Then,  when  the  holiness  of  the  nation  as  a 
result  of  the  Spirit's  work  was  a  dominant  thought, 
the  holiness  of  the  individual  as  the  result  of  endow- 
ment by  that  same  Spirit  follows  naturally. 

Why,  then,  did  it  not  arise  earlier?  While  it  is 
true  that  the  great  emphasis  on  the  future  of  Israel 
as  a  holy  nation  belongs  to  the  exilic  prophets,  the 
idea  was  not  so  foreign  to  earlier  prophets  but 
that  it  might  have  led  to  the  corresponding  idea  of 
ethical  holiness  in  the  individual.  Why  had  it  not 
done  so?  Because  national  holiness  was  only  one 
element  in  the  idea.  The  other  element,  no  less 
necessary,  was  the  clear  recognition  of  the  concept 
of  personality.  This  is  always  assumed  in  modern 
thought.  It  was  not  assumed  in  ancient  thought. 
A  concept  of  personality  so  clear  that  it  could  stand 
apart  and  be  made  the  subject  of  definite  consid- 
eration is  not  found  in  Hebrew  literature  earlier 
than  the  exilic  time.  Ezekiel  is  the  first  writer  who 
clearly  perceived  it.  Only  after  it  had  gained  rec- 
ognition could  the  concept  of  personal  ethical-re- 
ligious life  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  come  into 
being. 

It  is  probable  that  the  change  of  experience  in  the 
growth  of  religious  thought  which  is  summarized 
above  under  3  may  also  have  had  its  bearing  on  the 

5i 


The  Spirit  of  God 

development  of  this  new  idea.  We  have  seen  that 
the  physical  phenomena  of  early  prophecy  had 
largely  passed  away.  We  have  seen  also  that  as 
long  as  the  peculiar  mental  and  emotional  experi- 
ences that  made  up  later  prophecy  lasted  the  prophet 
considered  himself,  and  was  doubtless  considered  by 
others,  as  inspired.  When,  however,  prophecy  de- 
clined there  was  no  longer  any  experience  except 
that  of  simple  religious  consciousness  which  could 
be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  It  would  perhaps  be  more 
correct  to  say  that  Hebrew  thought  had  now 
reached  the  stage  where  simple  religious  conscious- 
ness could  take  the  place  of  the  older  and  more 
intense  experiences  which  were  interpreted  to  in- 
dicate union  with  God.  It  was  a  natural  sequence 
that  the  loftiest  term  Israel  had  for  the  expression 
of  this  union  should  not  be  laid  aside,  but  lifted  to 
a  still  loftier  meaning  and  applied  to  what  was  now 
the  highest  and  purest  religious  experience  that  de- 
vout hearts  in  Israel  knew.  Thus  always  at  a 
certain  stage  in  advancing  religious  thought  the 
external  has  yielded  to  the  internal,  the  ritualistic 
to  the  ethical  and  spiritual.  Thus,  for  example, 
prayer  ceased  to  be  a  mere  appendage  of  sacrifice 
and  rose  to  an  independent  expression  of  com- 
munion with  God.  This  change  in  the  experience 
which  was  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  is  but  part  of  the 
working  of  a  law  which  the  history  of  religions 
abundantly  exemplifies  elsewhere. 

No  period  of  profound  reflection  on  God  and  his 
work  could  long  confine  the  active  power  of  God  to 

52 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

the  field  of  individual  consciousness  or  of  national 
life.  Already  in  the  earlier  period  it  had  begun  to 
reach  beyond  that  into  the  realm  of  nature,  but  as  yet 
only  for  the  sake  of  man.  In  the  time  of  the  exile, 
when  new  national  experiences  were  yielding  so 
many  new  religious  ideas,  this  idea  of  God  in  nature 
also  passed  through  a  period  of  very  rapid  expansion. 
Then  for  the  first  time  cosmogony  interested  He- 
brew thought.1  Here,  too,  God  was  conceived  of 
as  active.  What  more  natural  than  to  say  that  the 
agent  of  this  activity  was  the  Spirit  of  God?  If 
Jahveh  was  the  God  of  all  the  world,  not  of  Israel 
and  Palestine  only,  then  all  the  operations  of  nature 
were  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  very 
growth  and  decay  of  the  transient  grass  and  flower 
proceeded  from  the  Spirit  (Isa.  40.  7).  No  opera- 
tion of  nature  was  too  insignificant  to  be  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Man's  connection 
with  natural  operations  now  disappeared  as  a  reason 
for  the  interest  of  God's  Spirit  in  them.  To  God 
the  Creator  nature  is  an  end  in  itself,  not  merely  a 
means.  In  this  period  Hebrew  thought  passed 
from  the  anthropocentric  to  the  cosmocentric  phase, 
and  the  change  in  the  usage  of  the  Spirit  is  one  mark 
of  that  transition. 

1  Gen.  1 ;  Psa.  8,  104 ;  Job  26,  the  chief  cosmological  passages  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  are  all  exilic  or  later.  &OI2  (create)  is  used  of  the  creation 
in  pre-exilic  writings  only  in  Amos  4.  13;  Deut.  4.  22  (exilic?).  In  P  it  is 
used  9  times,  allowing  Gen.  6.  7  to  stand  apart  as  R,  in  Second  Isaiah  17 
times,  in  Psalms  3  times.  The  title  of  God  as  Creator  (NTlS)  is  wholly 
post-exilic  (Isa.  40.  28;  43.  15;  Eccles.  12.  1).  TV152  (make)  is  used 
of  creation  in  pre-exilic  writings  only  in  J,  Gen.  2,  ff.  (Exod.  20.  11  is  R, 
dependent  upon  P);  Amos  4.  13;  5.  8;  Isa.  27.  1*5  29.  16,  f.;  37.  16;  Jer. 
10.  i2,  f.;  14.  22;  27.  5:32.  17;  51.  15,  f.  It  is  thus  used  in  Second  Isaiah 
12  times,  in  Job  6  times,  in  Psalms  17  times  (all  plainly  post -exilic,  from 
Psa.  86  to  end  of  the  book),  and  in  Ecclesiastes  7  times. 

53 


The  Spirit  of  God 

In  the  literature  of  this  period  what  is  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Spirit  to  the  created  universe?  To 
material  nature  the  Spirit  stands  in  the  relation  of 
a  transcendent  cause.  It  caused  the  change  from 
chaos  to  the  ordered  cosmos  (Gen.  i.  2),  made  the 
heavens  (Psa.  33.  6),  "garnished"  them  (Job  26. 
13),  withers  the  grass  and  the  flower  (Isa.  40.  7), 
controls  the  floods  of  waters  (Psa.  18.  15),  endows 
the  beasts  with  life  (Psa.  104.  30).  Nowhere  do 
we  have  the  assertion  of  any  except  the  trans- 
cendental relation  toward  nature  apart  from  man. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  author  of  Psa.  104. 
30  avoids  saying  that  the-  Spirit  of  God  which  is 
sent  out  from  him  becomes  the  spirit  of  the  beasts. 
The  idea  is  plainly  that  of  external  causation,  as 
determined  by  the  preceding  parallels,  "Thou  open- 
est  thy  hand,  they  are  satisfied  with  good;  thou 
hidest  thy  face,  they  are  troubled ;  thou  takest  away 
their  breath,  they  die."  In  all  these,  as  also  in  the 
verse  following,  "Thou  sendest  forth  thy  Spirit, 
they  are  created,"  there  is  an  elliptical  omission  of 
the  connective  in  the  sense  of  result. 

In  certain  passages  where  the  Spirit  is  used  of 
man  a  transcendental  interpretation  is  possible. 
Such  are  Isa.  42.  5,  God  giveth  the  spirit  to  man; 
Job  33.  4,  "The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me;" 
Eccles.  12.  7,  "The  spirit  shall  return  to  God  who 
gave  it."  Note  that  this  last  does  not  speak  of  the 
human  spirit  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  the  spirit 
which  God  gave.  Compare,  for  the  idea  of  the  re- 
turn of  the  Spirit  of  God,  Psa.  104.  29,  f. ;  Zech. 

54 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

12.  i,  God  forms  the  spirit  of  man  within  him; 
Num.  1 6.  22;  2J,  16,  "Lord  of  the  spirits  of  all 
flesh;"  Mai.  2.  15.  Other  passages  demand  for  ex- 
planation the  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  immanent  cause : 
Job  27.  3,  The  breath  of  God  is  in  my  nostrils ;  Job 
34.  14,  "If  he  gather  unto  himself  his  spirit  and  his 
soul"  (if  "his"  refers  to  God). 

The  predominant  use  is  here  still  the  transcen- 
dental. The  narrow  range  of  literature  in  which  the 
immanent  idea  is  found  is  noticeable.  In  charac- 
ter this  literature  is  that  which  most  closely  ap- 
proaches the  philosophical.  The  statement  so  often 
made  that  in  common  Hebrew  thought  the  spirit 
of  man  was  the  Spirit  of  God  is  not  entirely  cor- 
rect. That  certain  Hebrew  writers  held  such  an 
idea  must  be  admitted.  That  it  was  a  common 
Hebrew  notion  does  not  seem  to  be  the  fact. 

In  the  charismatic  use  some  passages  admit  of 
a  transcendental  interpretation.  Such  are  Ezek.  3. 
12,  14;  8.  3;  11.  1,  24;  43.  5;  Zech.  4.  6.  In  these 
the  Spirit  acts  upon  the  prophet  from  without. 

The  Spirit  used  in  the  sense  of  immanent  causa- 
tion is,  however,  more  usual.  Of  individuals :  Ezek. 
2.  2;  3.  24;  11.  5;  Isa.  61.  1  (?);  Num.  27.  18; 
Exod.  31.  3;  35.  31;  Job  32.  8;  Prov.  1.  23  (?); 
Neh.  9.  20.  Of  the  nation:  Isa.  42.  1;  59.  21; 
61.  1  (if  of  the  Servant)  ;  Joel  3.  1 ;  Ezek.  11.  19; 
36.  26,  f. ;  37.  14;  39.  29;  Zech.  12.  10.  Here  the 
Spirit  "enters  into"  the  prophet  or  the  nation,  and 
the  action  is  from  within.  The  idea  seems  also 
usually  to  be  that  of  a  permanent  force  residing 

55 


The  Spirit  of  God 

in  the  person  or  nation,  rather  than  a  gift  for  a 
particular  time  and  purpose.  Where  the  ancient 
prophetic  use  is  followed,  as  in  Ezekiel,  the  use  of 
the  immanent  idea  is  easily  enough  accounted  for 
by  ancient  notions  of  the  Spirit  as  immanent  in 
the  prophets;  so  perhaps  also  in  the  wisdom  pas- 
sages Job  32.  8;  Prov.  1.  23.  In  the  cases  of  the 
use  of  the  Spirit  as  the  possession  of  the  Servant  in 
the  present  or  of  all  Israel  in  the  future  simple 
tradition  no  longer  serves  to  account  for  the  im- 
manence. The  old  idea  of  prophetic  inspiration 
doubtless  furnished  the  foundation,  but  the  super- 
structure belonged  to  living  thought. 

Now,  to  gather  up  the  facts:  The  Spirit  is  used 
as  a  transcendent  cause  for  all  nature  outside  man. 
It  is  sometimes  used  as  a  transcendent  and  some- 
times, but  less  often,  as  an  immanent  cause  for  the 
life  of  man.  It  is  used  sometimes  as  a  transcendent, 
but  much  more  often  as  an  immanent,  cause  for  in- 
dividual and  national  endowments.  That  is,  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  upon  nature,  but  operates  both 
in  and  upon  man.  This  last  clause  expresses  not  two 
ideas,  but  one  and  the  same  idea  stated  in  two  dif- 
ferent ways.  We  find  both  used  in  the  same  writer, 
as  in  Ezekiel.  We  must  not  complain  that  the 
Hebrew  writers  did  not  see  a  discrepancy  in  these 
different  ways  of  looking  at  God's  activity;  nor 
must  we  complain  that  they  coupled  the  physical 
and  rational  life  of  man  together  as  over  against  the 
physical  external  world. 

This  leads  to  the  question,  What  is  the  distinc- 

56 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

tion  between  God  and  the  Spirit?  It  is  still  what 
it  was  in  the  earlier  literature,  that  the  Spirit  is 
God  active  in  the  world.  The  Hebrew  now  dif- 
ferentiates between  God  and  the  world  more  sharply 
and  philosophically  than  in  the  earlier  period. 
There  is  a  clearer  sense  of  the  transcendence  of  God. 
He  is  above  the  world,  acting  upon  it  from  without. 
This  is  God  considered  as  the  philosophizing  tend- 
ency demanded.  With  the  further  growth  of  re- 
flection still  more  emphasis  was  laid  on  the  tran- 
scendental character  of  God.  It  is  the  same  tendency 
that  culminated  in  the  refusal  to  pronounce  the 
name  of  the  Deity.  Had  religion  been  only  philos- 
ophy, the  Spirit  of  God  would  have  become  only  a 
transcendental  power  acting  on  the  world  and  hu- 
man life  from  without,  not  differing  from  God 
himself.  The  term  would  have  lost  special  meaning 
and  would  perhaps  have  finally  disappeared,  as  in 
the  next  period  of  the  literature  it  actually  does 
cease  to  be  used  in  this  meaning. 

But  religious  feeling  has  ever  made  a  different 
demand.  It  has  felt  the  sense  of  union  with  the 
Deity,  has  striven  to  make  that  union  as  close  as 
possible,  and  has  earnestly  sought  means  for  its 
expression. 

Theology  and  ritual  in  early  Judaism  were  put- 
ting God  away  from  man,  until  in  the  second  cen- 
tury before  Christ  the  author  of  Daniel  gave  as  a 
commonplace  the  opinion  that  "the  gods  dwell  not 
with  man."  But  Hebrew  religion  had  another  side, 
that  of  religious  feeling,  and  that  side  took  refuge 

57 


The  Spirit  of  God 

in  the  use  of  the  ancient  conception  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  Sophistication  had  robbed  religion  of  the  old 
and  crude  ways  of  expressing  union  with  God 
through  the  Spirit.  Enthusiasm  and  exuberant 
prophetic  ecstasy  no  longer  satisfied  it.  But  that 
only  drove  religion  to  a  new  ground.  Deprived  of 
frenzy  and  emotional  excitement  as  evidences  of  the 
possession  of  the  Spirit,  it  sought  these  evidences 
in  the  calm  and  rational  religious  experiences.  As 
said  above,  the  Spirit  is,  as  in  the  earlier  literature, 
God  acting;  but  here  it  tends  to  become  God  acting 
in  the  human  experience,  and  upon,  not  in,  the  ex- 
ternal world.  The  tendency  was  toward  the  posi- 
tion that  the  Spirit  is  God  immanent  in  man,  as 
distinguished  from  God  transcendent  over  the 
world,  including  man.  When  this  tendency  had 
become  fully  developed  theological  thought  was 
ready  to  enter  upon  the  New  Testament  stage  of 
the  subject. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  compare  the  search 
for  union  with  God  in  early  Judaism  with  that 
in  other  religions  in  periods  of  increasing  theolog- 
ical and  ritual  activity.  Essentially  the  same  ele- 
ments would  be  found  in  all.  The  feeling  of  union 
with  God  will  not  down.  If  crushed  in  one  form, 
it  finds  refuge  in  another.  Neither  philosophy  nor 
ritual  are  able  to  rob  religion  of  this,  its  basal  con- 
ception. Great  activity  in  the  field  of  thought  or 
of  ceremonial  usually  produces  great  activity  in 
the  field  of  religious  feeling  as  its  complement.  So 
it  came  about  that  in  the  Christian  church  the  age 

58 


Canonical  Writings  after  Exile 

of  the  triumph  of  scholasticism  was  the  age  of  a 
great  outburst  of  mysticism.  The  period  of  great 
activity  in  the  purely  deistic  Mohammedan  theol- 
ogy saw  the  rise  of  Sufism.  In  India  a  remark- 
ably mechanical,  ritualistic  theology  developed,  and 
also  the  strongest  mystical  quietism  that  the  world 
has  seen;  and  while  we  know  so  little  of  dates  in 
Indian  history  that  we  must  speak  with  caution  on 
all  matters  involving  them,  yet  everything  that  can 
be  discovered  favors  the  view  that  the  two  devel- 
oped in  direct  relation  to  each  other. 

The  comparisons  here  suggested  show  us  that 
the  course  which  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  took 
in  early  Judaism  was  in  no  way  an  isolated  or  in- 
explicable phenomenon,  but  was  subject  to  the  com- 
mon laws  of  religious  history.  The  only  thing 
about  it  which  is  peculiar  is  that  the  Hebrew  had  an 
expression  which  allowed  for  the  full  development 
of  the  idea  of  man's  union  with  God,  yet  without 
in  any  way  violating  the  conception  of  the  tran- 
scendental character  of  God. 

59 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Palestinian- Jewish  "Writings 

It  will  be  best  for  our  purpose  to  discuss  the 
later  Judaic  writings  of  the  pre-Christian  period  in 
two  sections,  the  Palestinian  and  the  Alexandrian. 
Both  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  and  the  experience 
which  it  represents  differ  somewhat  in  the  two  lit- 
eratures. In  the  Palestinian  writings  we  include 
those  Jewish  productions  dating  from  about  B.  C. 
200  to  the  end  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian 
era  which  represent  Palestinian  as  distinct  from 
Alexandrian  Judaism. 

Classifying  the  uses  of  the  Spirit  in  this  litera- 
ture as  nearly  as  possible  as  in  previous  sections,  we 
have  the  following  arrangement: 

A.  Spirit  used  of  God  acting  in  the  individual 
rational  life: 

i.  For  endowment  of  individuals  with  charis- 
matic gifts: 

(a)  Prophecy:  Sir.  48.  24,  "Isaiah  saw  by  a  great 
spirit  the  last  things."  Test.  XII,  Levi  2,  "A  spirit 
of  discernment  of  the  Lord  came  over  me."  This 
spirit  of  vision  seems  to  be  essentially  the  same  as 
the  spirit  of  prophecy.1 

(b)  Skill  in  judgment:  Sus.  45,  Theod.,  "God 
raised  up  the  holy  spirit  of  a  young  lad,  whose  name 

1Add  Mart..  Isa.  5.  14.  During  the  martyrdom  "Isaiah  cried  not  nor 
wept,  but  his  mouth  discoursed"  "mit  heiligen  Geist"  (so  Beer,  in  Kautsch, 
Apoc.  u.  Pseudepigraphen). 

60 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

was  Daniel."  42  LXX,  "The  angel,  as  he  had  been 
commanded,  gave  a  sagacious  spirit  to  a  young  man, 
namely,  to  Daniel"1  (comp.  64  LXX,  'Tor  young 
men  are  piously  disposed,  and  there  will  be  in  them 
a  spirit  of  knowledge  and  sagacity  forever"). 

(c)  Wisdom:  Sir.  39.  6,  "If  the  great  Lord  will, 
he  shall  be  filled  with  the  spirit  of  understanding" 
(comp.  4  Mace.  7.  14,  where  the  Spirit  which 
revives  life  after  death  is  called  nvevpa  tov  /Loyto^oi>, 
Spirit  of  reasoning). 

(d)  The  interpretation  of  dreams:  Dan.  4.  8,  9, 
18;  5.  12,  14. 

(e)  An  ethical  use  (see  C). 

2.  As  the  basis  of  human  life.  As  in  the  early 
post-exilic  literature,  this  division  includes  the  whole 
man,  without  sharp  distinction  between  the  physi- 
cal and  the  rational.  Man  is  considered  as  a 
unit  over  against  the  rest  of  creation.  At  the  same 
time  the  passages  given  below  emphasize  the  rational 
rather  than  the  physical: 

Jub.  5.  8:  "My  Spirit  shall  not  remain  forever 
upon  men,  for  they  are  flesh"  (borrowed  directly 
from  Gen.  6.  3). 

Apoc.  Baruch  23.  5:  "My  Spirit  is  the  creator 
of  life"  (said  in  speaking  of  life  after  death.  The 
book  is  comparatively  late,  coming  from  the  last 
half  of  the  first  Christian  century). 

4  Mace.  7.  14,  quoted  above,  1,  (c). 


1  Passages  like  this  seem  to  be  the  meeting  point  of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  and  the  conception  of  the  human  spirit.  The  spirit  is  thought  of 
as  being  in  some  way  connected  with  God,  yet  as  being  at  the  same  time 
the  spirit  of  a  man. 

61 


The  Spirit  of  God 
Judith  1 6.  14: 

"  For  all  thy  creatures  serve  thee 

For  thou  spakest,  and  they  came  into  being, 

Thou  didst  send  forth  thy  Spirit,  and  it  fashioned  them" 

(this  may  include  animal  life  as  well;  if  so,  it  is 
probably  a  borrowing  of  the  common  older  idea, 
perhaps  from  Psa.   104.  30). 

The  following  passages  belong  here  only  by  in- 
ference. They  speak  of  the  human  spirit  as  cre- 
ated by  God,  though  not  explicitly  mentioning  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  the  active  agent  of  creation : 

2  Mace.  7.  22,  f. :  "I  [the  mother]  know  not  how 
you  came  into  my  womb,  nor  did  I  give  you  spirit 
and  life,  and  did  not  arrange  in  order  the  constitu- 
ent parts  of  each  one.  Accordingly  the  Creator  of 
the  world,  who  originated  and  formed  man,  and 
found  out  the  origin  of  all  things,  will  in  mercy 
give  you  back  both  spirit  and  life  again." 

2  Mace.  14.  46:  "Calling  upon  the  Lord  of  life 
and  spirit  to  restore  him  these  again,  he  thus  died" 
(comp.  4  Mace.  16.  25,  "If  God  would  make  them 
life;"  same  idea,  without  use  of  spirit). 

2  Mace.  3.  24 '}  "The  Lord  of  spirits,"  or  "of 
spirit." 

Enoch  37.  2,  4,  5,  etc.:  "The  Lord  of  spirits." 
Compare  note  in  Charles's  Enoch,  in  loco:  "One 
hundred  and  four  times,  twenty-eight  of  these  at 
least  in  interpolations."  Its  original  meaning  in 
Enoch  seems  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  spirits  of  angels 

^ritzsch  reads  naripuv,     Sweet,  Kamphausen  (Kautsch's    edition), 

7TVeVfidTUV. 

62 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

and  of  the  dead   (see  40.  7-10),  the  principle  of 
whose  life  is  spiritual  (comp.  15.  4,  6;  61.  12). 

B.  Spirit  representing  God  acting  in  the  physi- 
cal world  and  in  the  development  of  history: 

1.  On  external  nature  apart  from  man.  While 
there  are  no  passages  extant  representing  the  Spirit 
as  acting  on  nature  apart  from  man,  it  is  not  im- 
possible that  there  may  be  a  remote  connection 
between  that  more  ancient  idea  and  the  conception 
which  occasionally  appears  that  the  phenomena  of 
nature  have  spirits: 

Jub.  2.  2 :  "Then  on  the  first  day  he  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  and  the  water  and  all  the 
spirits  who  serve  before  him,  .  .  .  the  angel  of 
the  wind-spirit  and  the  angel  of  the  spirit  of  the 
clouds  of  darkness  and  of  the  hail  and  of  the 
hoar-frost,  .  .  .  and  the  angel  of  the  spirits  of  the 
cold  and  the  heat  and  the  winter  and  the  spring  and 
the  autumn  and  the  summer,"  etc.  (so  Enoch  60. 
16,  where  much  the  same  list  of  natural  objects  is 
given). 

Charles  (Assumption  of  Moses,  page  106,  ff.) 
suggests  that  the  original  form  of  the  Assumption 
contained  the  claim  of  Satan  to  the  lordship  of  the 
world,  to  which  Michael  rejoined,  "The  Lord  re- 
buke thee,  for  it  was  God's  Spirit  that  created  the 
world  and  all  mankind,  so  God  is  the  Lord  of  the 
world."  The  passages  on  the  basis  of  which  Charles 
makes  the  above  suggestion  are  the  following:  (a) 
Acta  Synodi  Nicaen.,  II,  20,  and  yap  nvevfiarog  dytov 
dvrov  navroq  eKrladTjfiev.    (b)   An   anonymous  writ- 

63 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ing  from  Cremer's  Catena  in  Epist.  Cathol.,  page 
1 60,  Tovriari  6  Kvpiog  tcjv  7rvevfj,dT(ov  teat  ndarj^  cap/tog. 

The  total  lack  elsewhere  in  the  literature  of  any 
expression  exactly  equivalent  to  (a)  and  the  very 
frequent  use  of  "Lord  of  spirits"  in  the  Similitudes 
of  the  book  of  Enoch  would  suggest  the  probability 
that  (b)  more  nearly  represents  the  original,  and 
that  Charles's  reproduction  should  be  revised 
accordingly. 

2.  For  guidance  or  influence  in  the  field  of  hu- 
man actions.  In  these  books  always  a  possession 
of  the  personal  Messiah,  working  redemption  for 
Israel  or  judgment  on  her  enemies.  This  becomes 
a  charismatic  use,  and  might  be  classed  under  A,  1 : 

Enoch  62.  2 :  "And  the  Lord  of  spirits  seated  him 
[that  is,  the  Messiah]  on  the  throne  of  his  glory, 
and  the  spirit  of  righteousness  was  poured  out  upon 
him,  and  the  word  of  his  mouth  slew  all  the  sinners, 
and  all  the  unrighteous  were  destroyed  before  his 
face." 

Enoch  49.  3:  "And  in  him  dwells  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  and  the  spirit  of  him  who  gives  knowledge 
and  the  spirit  of  understanding  and  of  might  and 
the  spirit  of  those  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  right- 
eousness." 

Psa.  Sol.  17.  42:  "God  shall  cause  him  to  be 
mighty  through  the  spirit  of  holiness  and  wise 
through  the  counsel  of  understanding,  with  might 
and  righteousness"  (17.  37  in  Kautsch's  edition). 

Psa.  Sol.  18.  8:  In  the  day  of  the  Messiah  the 
Lord  will  bring  goodness  to  pass  through  him,  "in 

64 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  of  righteousness  and  of 
might"  (18.  7  in  Kautsch's  edition). 

Test  XII,  Levi  18:  "The  spirit  of  understand- 
ing and  of  holiness  will  be  upon  him." 

Judah  24:  "The  heavens  will  open  over  him  to 
give  him  the  blessing  of  the  Spirit  of  the  holy 
Father,  and  the  spirit  of  grace  will  be  poured  out 
upon  him." 

All  these  passages  seem  to  contain  a  reminis- 
cence of  Isa.  11.  2,  a  passage  which  evidently  had 
a  great  influence  on  the  Messianic  thought  of 
Judaism. 

C.  Of  the  ethical  life: 

Test.  XII,  Simon  4:  "Joseph  was  a  good  man,  and 
had  the  Spirit  of  God  in  him." 

Benj.  4:  "The  good  man  .  .  .  loves  him  who 
has  the  grace  of  a  good  spirit  with  his  whole 
soul." 

Benj.  8:  "He  is  unspotted  of  heart,  since  the 
Spirit  of  God  rests  upon  him"  (this  is  charismatic 
in  form). 

D.  Spirit  used  of  God  ab  intra: 

Enoch  67.  10:  "Spirit  of  the  Lord"  (unique  in 
Enoch  and  in  this  whole  literature.  Occurring  in 
the  Similitudes,  which  use  "the  Lord  of  the  spirits" 
so  often,  the  suggestion  is  obvious  that  it  may  be 
an  error  of  text.  So  Beer  in  Kautsch  [page  274], 
"viel.  in  'Herrn  d.  Geister'  zu  verbessern"). 

Enoch  70.  2:  "And  he  [Enoch]  was  carried  aloft 
on  the  chariots  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  name  vanished 
amongst  men"  (comp.  2  Kings  2.  11). 
(5)  65 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Comparing  these  passages  with  those  from  the 
earlier  post-exilic  period,  we  find: 

i.  The  use  of  the  Spirit  for  God  ab  intra  gained 
no  ground.  Judaistic  thought  does  not  incline  to 
identify  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  word 
"spirit"  was  coming  into  continually  more  frequent 
use  as  a  name  for  the  personality  of  man,  but  the 
analogy  of  this  psychological  usage  was  not  carried 
over  into  the  realm  of  theological  thought. 

2.  In  the  earliest  Hebrew  period  the  term  was 
only  used  in  reference  to  God's  action  upon  man  or 
for  the  sake  of  man.  In  early  post-exilic  literature 
it  was  also  used  of  God's  action  upon  nature  apart 
from  man.  Here  there  is  a  return  to  the  older 
usage,  but  with  a  difference;  for  now  all  idea  of 
the  Spirit  as  God  acting  on  nature,  for  the  sake  of 
man  or  otherwise,  has  disappeared,  and  the  Spirit 
acts  only  on  man. 

3.  In  the  earliest  Hebrew  period  the  dominant 
idea  was  charismatic  and  individual,  based  on  the 
manifestations  of  prophecy.  In  the  early  post-exilic 
it  was  twofold,  the  Spirit  in  nature  and  the  Spirit 
in  national  history  and  hope.  Here  once  more  it 
is  charismatic,  but  with  two  elements:  One  is  in- 
dividual, the  thought  of  the  ethical  value  of  the 
possession  of  the  Spirit;  the  other  is  national,  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Messiah.  This  connects 
itself,  on  the  one  hand,  with  the  national  hope  so 
prominent  in  the  last  period,  and,  on  the  other,  with 
the  idea  of  the  individual  charismatic  gift  in  its 
ethical  value.     (Note  that  the  Spirit  given  to  the 

66 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

Messiah  is  a  spirit  of  righteousness  and  justice, 
qualities  which  immediately  link  with  the  individual 
ethical  idea.)  One  may  draw  these  together,  then, 
in  the  statement  that  the  dominant  idea  is  that  of 
the  ethical  rather  than  the  merely  physical  or  psy- 
chical result  of  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

4.  The  concept  of  the  Spirit  as  the  essential  sub- 
stance of  human  life  is  nowhere  clearly  stated.  It 
would  seem  that  God  had  become  too  far  removed 
from  the  world  of  human  error  and  frailty  for  this 
idea  to  be  wholly  acceptable.  In  its  place  we  find 
a  rather  numerous  group  of  passages  that  affirm 
that  God  is  the  creator  of  human  spirits,  without, 
however,  making  the  Spirit  of  God  the  means  of 
creation  or  in  any  way  the  point  of  contact. 
Where,  as  in  Judith  16.  14,  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
the  means  of  creation  it  is  still  not  identified  with 
the  spirit  of  man.  This  is  doubtless  due  to  a  grow- 
ing hesitancy  to  affirm  union  between  the  erring 
spirit  of  man  and  the  holy  Spirit  of  God. 

The  small  part  which  the  idea  played  in  the 
thought  of  this  period  is  indicated  by  the  narrow 
range  of  literature  in  which  the  term  occurs.  In 
the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  it  is  found  only  in 
Judith,  Sirach,  Susanna,  Second  Maccabees,  and 
Fourth  Maccabees.  It  is  lacking  also  in  the  As- 
sumption of  Moses,  as  we  now  have  it,  Fourth 
Ezra,  and  the  Life  of  Adam  and  Eve. 

The  uses  of  the  Spirit  here  may  be  reclassified 
as  follows:  1.  The  historical — the  Spirit  in  the 
past.    With  this  falls  the  haggadic  use  in  A,  1,  (a), 

67 


The  Spirit  of  God 

(b),  (c).  2.  The  Messianic — the  Spirit  in  the  fu- 
ture. 3.  The  psychological  and  religious— the  Spirit 
as  the  basis  of  rational  and  ethical  life.  4.  The  the- 
ological— the  Spirit  as  God  ab  intra.  None  of  these 
uses  are  new  with  this  period.  The  ethical  use,  how- 
ever, is  more  fully  developed  than  in  the  preceding 
period,  but  is  used  only  of  traditional  figures  in  the 
distant  past,  except  in  Test.  XII,  Benj.  4. 

The  uses  found  in  earlier  periods,  but  lacking 
here,  are  (a)  the  charismatic  Spirit  as  productive 
of  physical  and  strongly  emotional  results,  (b)  the 
Spirit  as  an  active  force  in  the  external  world. 

We  have  tried  to  translate  the  literature  of  each 
period  into  terms  of  actual  experience.  Let  us  see 
if  we  can  discover  what  experience  lay  for  these 
writers  behind  their  use  of  the  Spirit.  In  order  to 
do  this  we  must  exclude  from  consideration  certain 
groups  of  passages.  On  nearly  all  subjects  the 
writings  of  Judaism  represent  three  classes  of 
material : 

1.  That  borrowed  directly  from  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, and  used  without  assimilation  or  much  effort 
to  find  its  exact  meaning.  This  has  little  signifi- 
cance for  the  Jewish  thought  of  this  period'. 

2.  That  which,  while  not  borrowed  directly,  is 
yet  so  controlled  by  the  usages  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings that  it  is  merely  traditional  and  cannot  be  used 
to  represent  the  real  thought  of  the  period. 

3.  That  which  grows  out  of  living  experience, 
and  so  forms  an  integral  part  of  the  body  of 
thought. 

68 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

Every  religion  with  a  history  behind  it  has  need 
to  classify  its  present  possessions  under  these  ru- 
brics. One  might  draw  illustrations  from  modern 
Hinduism  or  Buddhism  or  Parseeism  or  Confucian- 
ism. Those  familiar  with  the  present  forms  of 
these  faiths  are  continually  reminding  us  that  their 
books  do  not  fairly  represent  their  real  character, 
because  the  traditions  which  the  books  contain  are 
so  different  from  the  actual  religion.  Christianity 
furnishes  no  less  illustrations.  All  historic  churches 
have  in  their  theological  lumber  rooms  traditional 
elements  not  yet  thrown  away  which  do  not  repre- 
sent existing  views  of  truth. 

Cases  of  direct  borrowing  of  the  Spirit  in  Juda- 
istic  literature  are  such  as  Jub.  5.  8,  "My  Spirit  shall 
not  always  remain  upon  man,"  and,  slightly  less 
direct,  Enoch  70.  2,  "He  was  carried  aloft  on  the 
chariots  of  the  Spirit"  (comp.  2  Kings  2.  II,  where 
the  Spirit  is  not  used). 

Cases  of  traditional  use  are  Sir.  48.  24,  the  as- 
cription of  prophetic  vision  to  "a  great  spirit."  The 
term  "Lord  of  spirits"  in  Enoch  is  also  tradi- 
tional, though  its  particular  use  as  Lord  of  angelic 
spirits  or  spirits  of  the  dead  is  not.  Charles  notes 
that  the  term  occurs  often  in  the  interpolations  with- 
out regard  to  its  real  significance  in  the  genuine 
passages.  In  such  cases  we  have  pure  traditional 
use,  founded  on  Num.  16.  22,  etc.  Here  belong 
also  all  cases  of  haggadic  stories  in  which  the  Spirit 
is  made  to  perform  the  offices  that  it  does  in  ancient 
national  literature,  without  regard  to  contemporary 

69 


The  Spirit  of  God 

experience  (for  example,  Dan.  4.  8,  f. ;  5.  12,  f.). 
These  form  part  of  traditional  theological  belief, 
but  not  of  living  experience.  Excluding  these  two 
classes,  the  uses  of  the  term  which  express  actual 
experience  reduce  themselves  to  the  following: 

1.  Wisdom,  as  Sir.  39.  6,  "If  the  great  Lord  will, 
he  shall  be  filled  with  the  spirit  of  understand- 
ing. 

2.  The  basis  of  the  ethical  life. 

3.  The  Messianic  hope. 

To  this  period  the  words  of  Wendt  apply  when 
he  says  that  in  the  sense  of  a  certain  bodily  ecstasy 
Spirit  is  applied  either  to  "the  ideal  state  of  an  an- 
tiquity garnished  with  tradition"  or  to  an  ideal 
future  (Fleisch  und  Geist,  page  35).  Wendt  seems 
to  err  in  making  this  apply  "im  Grossen  und  Gan- 
zen"  to  the  Old  Testament.  Gunkel  in  criticising 
the  position  (page  4)  perhaps  does  not  recognize 
sufficiently  the  great  difference  between  the  different 
periods  of  Hebrew  thought,  or  how  barren  late 
Judaism  is  of  this  use  of  the  Spirit  as  applied  to 
any  actual  experience. 

What  are  the  reasons  for  this  narrowed  use  of  the 
term?  Two  related  reasons  suggest  themselves: 
The  first  is  the  disappearance  from  experience,  at 
least  so  far  as  the  authors  of  this  literature  were  con- 
cerned, in  large  measure,  if  not  entirely,  of  those 
extraordinary  phenomena  which  the  early  Hebrews 
assigned  to  the  Spirit.  Prophecy  with  its  inspired 
affiatus  had  ceased  (1  Mace.  4.  46;  9.  27;  14.  41  )\ 
Dreams  might  still  be  treated  in  haggadic  story  as 

70 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

the  revelations  of  God,  as  in  Daniel,  but  in  actual 
life  there  was  a  psychological  reason  for  them. 
They  came  from  the  multitude  of  business  (Eccles. 
5.  3).  Even  where  the  experience  occurred  it  was 
no  longer  ascribed  to  God.  The  madman  was  not 
under  the  inspiration  of  a  Spirit  of  God,  but  of 
a  demon,  or  unclean  spirit.  It  is  notable  that  in  all 
this  literature  there  is  not  one  claim  made  of  the 
actual  possession  of  the  Spirit  by  or  in  behalf  of  any 
contemporary.  The  contrast  with  the  early  Chris- 
tian literature  in  this  respect  is  very  striking. 

Was,  then,  this  Jewish  period  so  totally  lacking 
in  experiences  connected  with  deep  religious  emo- 
tion? We  are  accustomed  to  call  it  a  period  of 
ritualism,  but  did  the  ritualism  produce  a  religion  so 
cold  and  barren  as  this  would  seem  to  indicate?  It 
would  seem  an  irreparable  loss  to  religion  if  with 
the  disappearance  or  reinterpretation  of  old  psychic 
phenomena  there  had  occurred  also  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  accompanying  religious  feeling  which 
had  caused  these  phenomena  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit. 

One  cannot  so  read  Jewish  history.  The  mag- 
nificent heroism  of  the  Maccabean  time  would  for- 
bid it,  if  there  were  nothing  else.  First  and  Second 
Maccabees  and  Daniel  are  each  in  a  different  way 
witnesses  for  a  very  profound  religious  feeling  of 
exactly  the  sort  that  in  other  ages,  either  earlier  or 
later,  would  have  been  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  Fancy 
the  deed  of  Mattathias  told  in  the  book  of  Acts 
without  a  reference  to  the  Spirit !    Nor  is  the  Mac- 

71 


The  Spirit  of  God 

cabean  period  the  only  one  in  which  we  must  sup- 
pose intense  religious  experiences.  The  writers  of 
all  apocalypses  show  that  they  possessed  it.  One 
sees  no  good  reason,  so  far  as  the  feeling  they  ex- 
press is  concerned,  why  their  visions  should  not 
have  been  introduced  by  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
came  upon  me,  and  I  saw."  The  phrase  would  have 
been  appropriate  enough  in  the  mouth  of  Daniel 
or  Enoch  or  Baruch  or  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  but 
the  authors  never  allow  them  to  use  it.  The  New 
Testament  apocalyptist  claims  spiritual  possession 
(i.  10),  while  Spirit,  though  not  the  Spirit,  is  a 
part  of  the  regular  machinery  of  Hermas  (Visions, 
I,  i.  3 ;  II,  I.  i ) .  While,  then,  the  ecstasy  of  prophecy 
had  failed,  yet  experiences  and  feelings  appropriate 
to  be  assigned  to  the  Spirit  had  not  failed.  There 
must  be  some  other  cooperating  reason  for  the 
meager  use  of  the  Spirit. 

This  reason  is  found  in  the  growing  tendency, 
already  noted  in  the  last  period,  to  put  God  far  away 
from  the  world  and  to  avoid  any  phrase  which  had 
an  anthropomorphic  relation.  The  angel  of  Jahveh 
had  disappeared,  except  as  a  figure  borrowed  from 
the  Scriptures  in  pseudepigraphic  writings  like  Test. 
XII.  In  place  of  it  a  hierarchy  of  angels  had  been 
developed.  This  accounts  for  the  meager  use  of 
the  Spirit  as  applied  to  human  experience.  It  is  also 
closely  connected  with  the  further  development  of 
the  traditional  theological  idea  of  the  Messiah  as 
possessed  by  the  Spirit.  This  became  an  element  in 
setting  the  Messiah  apart  from  other  men,   and 

72 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

dignifying  his  age  as  unlike  the  present  age  in 
being  more  closely  connected  with  God. 

This  tendency  also  accounts  for  the  total  dis- 
appearance of  the  cosmological  use,  which  had 
developed  so  fully  in  the  preceding  period.  In 
the  Psalms  there  had  been,  as  Professor  Toy 
points  out,  "a  certain  warmth  of  coloring  in 
the  representation  of  God's  relation  to  the 
world."1  This  died  away  with  the  decline 
of  the  poetic  impulse  in  the  later  and  less  orig- 
inal psalmody,  as  the  consciousness  of  God's 
presence  had  died  away  with  the  decline  of  proph- 
ecy, and  nothing  had  risen  to  take  its  place.  The 
Psalms  of  Solomon  contain  nothing  of  it,  nor  do 
the  psalms  which  can  with  certainty  be  assigned  to 
the  Maccabean  period.2  God  was  no  longer  im- 
manent in  nature.  That  was  beneath  the  dignity 
of  the  God  of  heaven.  It  is  true  that  the  logical 
outcome  of  God's  overlordship  of  the  world  could 
be  nothing  less  than  the  care  of  all  his  creatures. 
The  germ  of  this  always  lay  in  the  undeveloped 
possibilities  of  Jewish  thought.  When  Christ  used 
God's  care  for  the  sparrows  to  illustrate  God's  care 
for  men  we  do  not  learn  that  he  met  with  any  ob- 
jection as  one  who  degraded  God.  In  fact,  one  may 
believe  that  he  would  never  have  used  this  picture 
of  the  sparrow  at  all  had  it  not  met  with  a  ready 
response  in  Jewish  popular  thought,  for  he  was  too 


1  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.   80. 

•  Even  Duhm,  who  perhaps  assigns  as  large  a  proportion  of  the  Psalter 
to  Maccabean  times  as  does  any  recent  writer,  excludes  the  nature  poems 
placing  them  in  the  Persian  period. 

73 


The  Spirit  of  God 

wise  a  teacher  to  load  his  argument  with  minor 
points  to  which  his  auditors  would  take  exception. 
Yet,  after  all,  so  far  as  literature  represents  the 
case,  Paul  was  much  nearer  typical  Judaistic 
thought  when  he  said,  "Is  it  for  the  oxen  that  God 
careth?" 

That  this  possible  inconsistency  existed  is  not 
surprising.  True  religious  thought  has  always,  in 
some  form,  left  open  the  door  for  the  idea  of  con- 
tact between  God  and  the  world  of  nature.  Since 
the  essence  of  religion  is  the  recognition  of  a  real 
relation  between  God  and  man,  and  since  man  is 
so  closely  connected  with  the  external  world,  sin- 
cere religion  never  completely  loses  sight  of  God's 
connection  with  the  world.  The  Palestinian  Jews 
did  not  philosophize  about  it.  They  hardly  recog- 
nized that  it  was  there,  but  it  was,  in  germ,  and  in 
due  time  it  could  bear  its  proper  fruit.  Indeed, 
Judaism  was  fortunate  in  that  it  did  not  philosophize 
about  it,  whether  under  the  name  of  the  Spirit  or 
under  any  other  name.  It  was  better  in  the  end 
that,  while  Judaism  was  exalting  the  might  and 
power  of  Jahveh  from  the  circumscribed  limits  of  a 
national  God  to  the  supreme  Ruler  of  the  universe, 
his  relation  to  nature  should  for  the  present  remain 
in  obscurity.  To  have  brought  it  into  prominence 
would  have  necessitated  one  of  two  things:  Either 
the  idea  of  God  would  have  been  kept  from  any 
genuine  advance,  bound  to  conceptions  that  were 
not  lofty  by  shackles  of  connection  with  the  material 
world,  remaining  permanently  to  all  intents  a  demi- 

74 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

urge;  or  else  some  philosophic  chain  must  have 
been  devised  with  links  enough  to  stretch  from 
heaven  to  earth.  The  non-philosophic  nature  of  the 
Hebrew  mind  allowed  the  Jews  to  escape  both  of 
these  calamities.  Alexandrian-Jewish  thought  took 
the  second  of  these  alternatives,  though  only  in  a 
half-hearted  way.  Neither  the  Logos  nor  the  Spirit 
was  ever  fully  hypostasized  by  the  system.  Gnosti- 
cism was  much  more  logical  and  thoroughgoing. 
Its  "aeons"  and  "powers"  formed  a  definite  system 
of  divine  connection  with  the  world.  It  raised 
the  conception  of  God  to  a  fitting  dignity  and  sat- 
isfied the  demands  of  reason  much  better  than  did 
the  amorphous  condition  of  Palestinian  Judaism. 
But  here,  as  so  often  in  the  history  of  religion,  the 
more  haste  the  less  speed.  The  battle  of  thought 
is  not  always  to  the  logical.  The  line  of  religious 
history  does  not  lie  through  Gnosticism  nor  even 
through  Alexandrian  Judaism,  in  spite  of  the 
Christian  Logos  doctrine,  but  through  Palestinian 
Judaism.  The  Spirit  was  lifted  forever  above  con- 
nection with  nature.  No  other  conception  took  its 
place.  But  in  time  the  religious  thought  could  once 
more  set  God  himself  in  relation  to  his  creation  of 
nature,  for  then  God  has  advanced  to  a  position 
where  this  relation  could  not  degrade  him,  but 
only  uplift  nature.  And  so  this  whole  range  of 
thought  passes  outside  the  history  of  the  idea  of 
the  Spirit,  yet  with  no  loss  to  its  intrinsic  religious 
value. 

At  the  same  time  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  gained  by 
75 


The  Spirit  of  God 

this  change.  It  became  limited  to  the  relation  be- 
tween God  and  man.  This  gave  it  a  religious  force 
and  made  it  significant  of  an  intimacy  of  relation 
such  as  never  could  have  been  attained  had  it  still 
been  used  of  God  active  in  the  wide  range  of  all 
his  creation.  By  becoming  narrowed  it  became 
both  intensified  and  elevated.  The  closer  one  studies 
the  history  of  this  idea  the  more  clearly  it  is  seen 
that  the  seemingly  simple  fact  of  dropping  the  re- 
lation to  external  nature  from  the  idea  of  the  Spirit 
forms  the  greatest  single  crisis  in  its  history.  It 
completed  the  foundation  upon  which  the  New 
Testament  structure  of  thought  on  this  subject  was 
reared. 

We  shall  understand  better  the  significance  of 
this  historic  process  for  the  growth  of  religious 
thought  if  we  note  the  course  of  the  same  idea  in 
other  religions.  It  was  said  above  that  a  sincere 
religion  never  completely  loses  sight  of  God's  con- 
nection with  the  world.  The  statement  was  made  in 
the  light  of  the  history  of  religion.  Everywhere 
one  finds  this  to  be  true,  in  some  form  or  other, 
and  often  the  form  is  significant  of  the  kind  of 
progress  which  it  is  possible  for  the  religion  in 
question  to  make. 

Early  religions  placed  their  gods  in  connection 
with  nature  in  a  direct  and  naive  way.  There  was 
for  them  no  problem  about  it,  any  more  than  there 
was  about  man's  connection  with  nature.  But  as 
a  religion  developed  the  problem  always  arose,  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously.    It  was  met  in  one  of  the 

76 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

two  ways  mentioned  above:  Either  the  idea  of  re- 
lation to  nature  checked  and  limited  the  complete 
growth  of  the  conception  of  God,  or  the  problem 
was  solved  by  some  philosophical  device  which  al- 
lowed the  elevation  of  God,  and  yet  kept  his  relation 
to  nature.  Examples  of  the  first  class  are  found  in 
most  of  the  earlier  religions  which  we  might  desig- 
nate as  non-philosophical,  as,  for  example,  the 
Canaanite.  The  Baals  of  Canaan  remained  to  the 
end  agricultural  gods.  Hebrew  and  Canaanite 
alike  worshiped  them  in  this  phase.  They  were 
so  closely  connected  with  the  operations  of  nature 
that  they  could  never  be  removed  from  this  relation. 
The  spirits  of  China  and  Babylon  were  also  orig- 
inally nature  gods,  whose  connection  with  nature 
remained  unbroken.  The  result  was  that  they  did 
not  grow,  but,  remaining  a  sort  of  dwarf  gods,  had 
value  only  for  the  lower  phases  of  religion,  magic 
and  demonology.  The  second  class  is  illustrated 
by  the  philosophical  schemes  of  Gnosticism  and  of 
the  Sankhya  and  Vedanta  schools  of  India.  These 
were  carefully  elaborated  metaphysical  devices  by 
which  the  Supreme  was  kept  unchanged  and  un- 
changing, not  sullied  by  the  impurities  of  the  world, 
yet  his  connection  with  the  world  was  made  prom- 
inent and  was  carefully  explained.  The  defect  of 
such  religions  as  mediums  of  the  advance  of  history 
is  that  their  metaphysical  devices  are  only  tempo- 
rary and  are  outgrown  by  the  progress  of  philo- 
sophic thought.  Few  religions  have,  like  the  Jew- 
ish, steered  a  middle  course  through  the  intricacies 

77 


The  Spirit  of  God 

of  the  problem,  and  adopted  neither  of  the  two 
solutions  which  most  naturally  offered  themselves. 

Amid  the  limitations  of  usage,  however,  there 
is  one  use  which  is  quite  as  free  as  in  former  periods. 
This  is  the  Messianic  use.  The  actual  number  of 
passages  in  which  it  occurs  does  not  increase  so 
much,  but  the  increase  in  the  proportion  of  use 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  idea  was  here  more  dom- 
inant than  it  had  been  in  previous  periods.  With 
this  occurs  a  notable  increase  in  the  use  of  the  spirit 
in  a  purely  psychological  sense,  meaning  the  per- 
son, both  living  and  dead  (for  example,  Enoch  22. 
5;  49-  3J67-8;7i.  2,  6,  etc.;  107.  17;  108.  11). 

We  again  raise  the  question  here,  as  in  the  last 
period,  of  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  created 
universe.  There  we  found  that  it  always  stood  in 
the  relation  of  a  transcendental  cause  to  nature, 
sometimes  in  that  of  a  transcendental  and  sometimes 
in  that  of  an  immanent  cause  to  man.  When 
thought  of  as  the  cause  of  the  life  of  man  the  pre- 
dominant use  was  transcendental;  when  as  the  or- 
igin of  his  endowment  the  more  usual  usage  was 
the  immanent.  As  later  Judaism  never  uses  the 
Spirit  in  reference  to  external  nature  the  first  class 
of  transcendental  passages  entirely  disappears.  The 
Spirit  as  God  acting  upon  man  as  the  cause  of 
human  life  is  in  all  cases  transcendental.  This  is 
so  whether  it  is  used  of  the  Spirit  as  the  cause  of 
life  in  general,  as  in  Judith  16.  14;  2  Mace.  7.  22; 
or  of  the  rational  life  which  survives  the  event  of 
death,  as  in  2  Mace.  14.  46;  7.  23.    The  life  of 

78 


The  Palestinian- Jewish  Writings 

man  is  never  the  Spirit  of  God,  not  even  in  Judith 
16.  14.  It  is  either,  as  there,  caused  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  or,  as  is  more  usual,  the  spirit  of  man  is 
given  by  God,  and  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  separation  between  the  spirit  of  man 
and  the  Spirit  of  God  is  now  complete.  Man  is 
not  considered  to  have  the  Spirit  of  God  because 
his  spirit  is  created  by  God.  This  absolute  separa- 
tion between  the  two  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  in 
preparing  the  older  Hebrew  anthropology  for  its 
development  into  the  New  Testament  anthropology. 

In  the  charismatic  use  the  following  passages,  in- 
cluding some  of  ethical  import,  are  capable  of  a 
transcendental  interpretation :  Sus.  42,  "The  angel, 
as  he  had  been  commanded,  gave  a  sagacious  spirit 
to  a  young  man,  namely,  to  Daniel.,,1  Test.  XII, 
Levi  2,  "A  spirit  of  discernment  of  the  Lord  came 
over  me."  Enoch  62.  2,  "The  spirit  of  righteousness 
was  poured  out  upon  him."  Test.  XII,  Judah  20, 
"The  spirit  of  holiness  will  be  upon  him."  In  these 
passages  the  Spirit  works  from  without  upon  the 
individuals. 

The  following  are  more  naturally  interpreted  as 
immanent :  Sir.  48.  24,  "Isaiah  saw  by  a  great  spirit 
the  last  things."  39.  6,  "He  shall  be  filled  with 
the  spirit  of  understanding."  Test.  XII,  Simon  4, 
"Joseph  was  a  good  man,  and  had  the  Spirit  of 
God  in  him."  Benj.  4,  "Him  who  has  the  grace 
of  a  good  spirit."  8,  "He  is  unspotted  of  heart, 
since  the  Spirit  of  God  rests  upon  him."     Mart., 

1  See  the  footnote  on  this  passage,  p.  61. 

79 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Isa.  5.  14,  Isaiah  "discoursed  with  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Enoch  49.  3,  "In  him  dwells  the  spirit  of  wisdom," 
etc.  Psa.  Sol.  17.  42,  The  Messiah  will  be  "mighty 
through  the  spirit  of  holiness."  18.  8,  The  Lord 
will  bring  goodness  to  pass  "in  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  of  righteousness  and  of  might."  Dan.  4.  8,  9, 
"In  whom  is  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods,"  etc.  In 
these  passages  the  Spirit  operates  from  within  the 
individual.  Here  also  the  Spirit  is  usually  an  abid- 
ing possession  rather  than  a  temporary  gift,  though 
it  is  not  always  easy  to  draw  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two.  Certainly  where  character  is  the 
result  of  the  Spirit,  as  in  Test.  XII,  Benj.  8,  the 
possession  must  be  regarded  as  permanent.  A  study 
of  the  passages  as  a  whole  shows  a  tendency  to 
regard  the  charismatic  Spirit  as  immanent,  working 
within  the  man,  rather  than  as  an  external  force, 
acting  from  without  upon  him. 

Jewish  thought,  then,  is  working  to  opposite  re- 
sults along  the  two  lines  of  the  development  of  the 
idea  of  the  Spirit.  In  the  act  of  creation  the  Spirit 
of  God  works  from  without.  Indeed,  it  is  becoming 
rare  that  the  need  of  the  intervention  of  the  Spirit  is 
felt  at  all.  In  the  endowment  of  man  with  gifts  the 
tendency  is  to  regard  the  Spirit  as  working  from 
within. 

The  tendency  to  retire  the  working  of  the  Spirit 
from  all  connection  with  the  merely  physical  or 
unusual  and  to  limit  it  to  the  distinctly  ethical  and 
religious  is  stronger  at  this  stage  than  in  any  of 
the  previous  periods,  but — and  this  is  important  for 

80 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

the  future  history  of  the  conception — the  Spirit 
working  ethically  was  never  ascribed  to  or  claimed 
by  a  contemporary.  It  always  belonged  to  the 
past  or  to  the  present  as  a  mere  generality.  This 
shows  a  growing  spiritual  power  and  ethical  sense 
which  is  much  greater  than  is  sometimes  recognized 
by  those  who  see  in  Judaism  only  a  monstrous  de- 
velopment of  burdensome  ceremonial.  The  abiding 
religious  power  of  Judaism  was  less  in  the  elabora- 
tion of  a  ritual  which  isolated  the  Jewish  from  the 
Gentile  world  than  in  the  growth  of  a  clear  moral 
insight  which  made  the  lower  ethics  of  other  re- 
ligions repugnant.  Isolation  by  ritual  alone  is  a 
mere  shell  which  never  in  the  history  of  religion 
constitutes  the  living  germ  of  religious  growth, 
however  much  it  may  serve  to  protect  it  from  ex- 
ternal forces  of  destruction.  The  outcome  and  the 
great  importance  of  this  course  of  moral  growth 
in  the  concept  of  the  Spirit  we  shall  see  when  we 
come  to  study  its  Christian  use. 

Up  to  this  stage  of  our  study  we  have  found  that 
the  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God  was  never  the  exact 
synonym  of  the  idea  of  God.  Here  also  this  is 
true.  The  Spirit  of  God  still  meant  for  the  Jew 
what  it  had  from  the  very  beginning  of  his  religion, 
God  active  in  the  world.  The  only  difference  from 
stage  to  stage  has  been  in  the  delimitation  of  the 
sphere  within  which  the  activity  of  God  was  as- 
signed to  the  Spirit.  This  sphere  had  been  broad- 
ened from  man  to  the  cosmos.  Here  it  was  narrowed 
again  to  man  and  to  the  higher  side  of  his  mental 
(6)  81 


The  Spirit  of  God 

activity,  but  still  it  is  God  acting.  Everything 
which  was  assigned  to  the  Spirit  could  be  equally 
assigned  to  God.  The  question  then  naturally 
arises,  Was  there,  then,  any  need  to  preserve  the 
term  "the  Spirit  of  God"?  The  answer  lies  in 
that  religious  feeling  which  we  have  before  found 
to  be  so  important  in  connection  with  this  subject, 
the  feeling  of  union  with  God.  This  feeling  is  very 
persistent.  Its  manifestation  always  measures  the 
high-water  mark  in  the  advance  of  any  faith,  for 
it  is  always  found  along  the  highest  levels.  The 
exilic  sense  of  God's  relation  to  man  and  the  world 
was  higher  than  that  which  at  an  earlier  period 
found  proofs  of  the  relation  only  in  the  unusual  and 
ecstatic.  But  the  Judaistic  sense  of  this  relation 
was  higher  still  and  found  its  expression,  so  far  as 
experience  went,  in  the  ethical  life  and  the  higher 
reason  which  it  called  wisdom;  while  it  looked  to 
the  future  for  a  still  closer  union  to  be  manifested 
in  the  Messiah.  Amid  the  externalism  of  the  Jew- 
ish ritualism  it  kept  and  used  this  old  expression 
of  the  Spirit,  and  yet  preserved  the  transcendence 
of  the  mighty  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth, 
untarnished  by  implication  of  contact  with  the 
frailty  and  impurity  of  man.  Thus  the  religious 
longing  for  the  union  with  God  was  satisfied,  and 
yet  God  was  not  brought  down  to  the  level  of 
man. 

We  have  before  turned  for  comparison  to  India, 
and  we  are  again  impelled  to  notice  the  likeness 
and  the  contrast.    In  India  there  was  also  this  long- 

82 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

ing  for  union  with  God.  Perhaps,  no  where  in  the 
world  has  that  longing  been  more  strongly  felt. 
There  also  it  reached  its  highest  culmination  in  a 
period  of  elaborate  ritual  development.  The  Hindu, 
like  the  Jew,  came  to  see  that  the  rational  and  the 
ethical  were  the  highest  realms  of  life.  He  also 
had  in  his  religious  history  trance,  ecstasy,  and 
vision  as  manifestations  of  man's  union  with  the 
divine;  and  he,  like  the  Jew,  had  risen  to  the 
thought  that  all  the  world  was  linked,  like  man, 
in  union  with  God.  But  he  had  no  term  by  the  use 
or  disuse  of  which  he  could  mark  nice  shades  of 
distinction  in  the  growth  of  his  own  religious  ex- 
periences. They  must  all  be  lumped  together  as 
union  with  the  Supreme.  Then  union  and  unity 
were  confused,  and  so  it  came  about  that  he  wor- 
shiped himself,  saying,  "I  am  Brahm;"  and  all  the 
world  was  likewise  Brahm,  and  cause  and  result, 
maker  and  made,  enjoyer  and  enjoyed,  sunk  into 
one  inextricable  confusion  whose  only  possible  log- 
ical outcome  was  the  absolute  identity  of  all  reality. 
To  this  conclusion  the  Vedanta  philosophy  came. 
Its  most  terse  expression  is  "This  is  that" — what- 
ever you  can  call  "this"  is  identical  with  "that."  It  is 
the  religious  feeling  of  union  with  God  fructifying 
in  philosophy.1     Yet  religion  must  have  this  feel- 

1  How  attractive  this  religious  philosophy  of  the  East  is  to  some  minds 
of  the  highest  order  may  be  seen  in  the  following  quotation  from  the  Auto- 
biography of  Max  Mfiller  (p.  42);  "The  'know  thyself,'  ascribed  to  Chilon 
and  other  sages  of  ancient  Greece,  gains  a  deeper  meaning  with  every  year. 
till  at  last  the  I.  which  we  looked  upon  as  the  most  certain  and  undoubted 
fact,  vanishes  from  our  grasp  to  become  the  Self,  free  from  the  various 
accidents  and  limitations  which  make  up  the  I.  and  therefore  one  with  the 
Self  that  underlies  all  individual  and  therefore  vanishing  I's.  What  that 
common  Self  may  be  is  a  question  to  be  reserved  for  later  times,  though  I 

83 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ing,  else  it  possesses  no  quickening  power.  The 
Jew,  with  his  term,  "the  Spirit  of  God,"  could  de- 
velop this  feeling  of  union,  and  yet  not  lose  him- 
self or  his  world  in  the  boundless  abyss  of  an  un- 
conditioned Supreme. 

The  Hindu  was  compelled  to  retain  the  crudest 
efforts  of  his  religion  to  reach  union  with  God, 
side  by  side  with  the  most  lofty.  No  term  distin- 
guished between  them,  and  they  all  stood  together 
in  one  confused  tangle  of  religious  ceremonials.  So 
it  happened  that  the  philosopher,  who  in  India  was 
often  the  man  of  strongest  religious  feeling,  was 
bound  to  the  physical  yoga  exercises,  whose  aim 
was  to  produce  trance  and  ecstasy.  Hindu  religion 
could  not  leave  behind  its  outgrown  expressions  of 
religious  experience,  but  must  mold  the  higher  to 
fit  the  lower  and  carry  all  forward  with  it,  as  alike 
important,  making  for  itself  an  intolerable  burden 
of  old  and  new,  crude  and  lofty,  enough  to  bear 
down  any  religious  system.  From  all  this  the  He- 
brew development  of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  relieved 
the  Jew.  One  does  not  see  how  any  other  usage 
could  have  so  well  fitted  his  religion  for  advance. 
This  allowed  him  to  pass  through  the  same  stages 
of  religious  experience  as  the  Hindu,  to  grasp  all 
the  Hindu's  religious  truths,  and  yet  to  leave  behind 
the  shell  of  the  seeds  from  which  a  better  fruitage 


may  say  at  once  that  the  only  true  answer  given  to  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
that  of  the  Upanishads  and  the  Vedanta  philosophy.  Only  we  must 
take  care  not  to  mistake  the  moral  Self,  that  finds  fault  with  the  active 
Self,  for  the  Highest  Self,  that  knows  no  longer  of  good  or  evil  deeds."  It 
is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Self  as  used  here  is  the  Atma,  which,  like 
the  XVfl,  -«  spirit,  *=  breath. 

84 


The  Palestinian-Jewish  Writings 

had  sprung.  It  made  his  religion  adaptable  to  the 
needs  of  growth,  and  yet  always  kept  it  true  to  the 
essential  fact  of  all  religion,  the  union  of  man  with 
God. 

Men  sometimes  question  why  it  is  that  modern 
critical  scholarship,  with  its  strong  appreciation  of 
ethnic  faiths,  still  holds  to  the  unique  value  of 
Hebrew  thought  for  the  history  of  religion.  It  is 
because  the  more  carefully  it  is  studied  the  more 
modern  scholarship  finds  in  this  religion,  together 
with  its  successor,  Christianity,  the  possibility  and 
the  power  of  an  infinite  religious  advance  which 
no  other  system  of  thought  presents.  Few  elements 
of  the  religion  exhibit  this  more  clearly  than  that 
we  are  now  considering.  The  reverent  scholar  is 
impelled  to  believe  that  through  this  Hebrew  and 
Jewish  progress  of  thought  there  worked  the  divine 
power  to  which  he  still  can  give  no  better  name  than 
the  Spirit  of  God. 

85 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

Successful  attempts  to  combine  elements  from 
two  widely  differing  forms  of  religion  into  a  single 
system  are  somewhat  rare  in  history.  Moham- 
medanism is  the  only  one  which  can  be  regarded 
as  having  become  a  permanent  force  under  its  own 
name.  Next  in  importance  to  it,  perhaps,  is  that 
movement  of  Greco-Jewish  syncretism  usually 
known  as  Alexandrian  Judaism,  of  which  Philo  is 
the  best  exponent  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  the 
most  valuable  and  best  known  single  literary  prod- 
uct. In  tracing  the  growth  of  religious  thought  it 
is  always  possible  to  treat  such  a  development  from 
either  one  of  its  two  sides.  So  Mohammedanism 
may  be  regarded  as  a  development  of  Arabic  re- 
ligion, under  the  influence  of  Jewish  and  Christian 
ideas,  or  as  a  Christian  sect  corrupted  to  extreme 
heresy  by  Arabic  paganism  and  Mohammed's  be- 
lief in  his  own  inspiration.  In  the  study  of  Alex- 
andrian Judaism  the  question  is  further  complicated 
by  the  fact  that  the  Greek  element  comes  into  it  not 
in  one  pure  strain,  but  mingled  in  varying  propor- 
tions from  at  least  three  different  forms  of  Hellenic 
thought:  Platonic,  Stoic,  and  Neo-Pythagorean. 
With  these  the  student  of  Greek  philosophy  must 
deal  in  detail.  For  him  Alexandrian  Judaism  is 
the  development  of  a  somewhat  confused  system 
of  Greek  thought  under  Hebrew  influence.     We 

86 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

are  to  approach  it  as  the  development  of  Hebrew 
thought  set  in  a  framework  of  Greek  philosophy. 
In  this  approach  we  are  certainly  at  one  with  the 
authors  themselves.  Philo,  for  example,  conceived 
of  his  own  work  as  the  legitimate  outcome  of  He- 
brew ideas.  He  always  stood  within  the  confines 
of  the  Hebrew  religion,  and  his  Greek  forms  of 
thought  were  only  the  platform  from  which  he 
hoped  to  make  himself  heard  by  those  outside.  He 
called  Plato  "the  great,"  but  Moses  was  "the  great- 
est and  most  perfect  man  that  ever  lived"  (Vita 
Mosis,  I,  i).  The  God  to  whom  he  offered  the 
allegiance  of  his  thought  was  always  the  Hebrew 
Jahveh.  The  problem  before  him  was  to  make  the 
Hebrew  religion  speak  Greek;  to  show  that  the 
best  Greek  thought  was  essentially  at  one  with  the 
eternal  verities  of  the  revelation  of  God  through 
Moses  in  the  Hebrew  law. 

In  this  attempt  he  was  seemingly  hampered  by 
an  almost  total  disparity  in  content  and  purpose  be- 
tween the  two.  Greek  thought  was  largely  specu- 
lative. The  Hebrew  law,  when  not  ceremonial, 
was  entirely  ethical.  If  he  would  link  them  together, 
he  must  either  emphasize  the  ethical  elements  of 
Greek  thought  or  find  speculation  in  the  Hebrew  law. 
The  practical  demands  of  his  purpose  united  with 
his  own  philosophical  inclination  to  lead  him  to  the 
latter  choice.  Yet,  Hebrew-like,  he  continually 
referred  to  the  divine  demands  for  purity  and  right- 
eousness and  to  the  close  relation  between  ethical 
goodness  and  the  possibility  of  gaining  wisdom. 

87 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Philo  used  two  general  methods  for  the  discovery 
of  speculation  in  the  Hebrew  law:  first,  allegory, 
an  instrument  which  the  Greek  interpreters  of 
Homer  placed  in  his  hand;  and,  second,  the  eleva- 
tion of  certain  Old  Testament  terms  to  a  prominence 
far  greater  than  they  occupied  in  Hebrew  thought, 
at  the  same  time  modifying,  though  never  totally 
transforming,  their  content.  These  terms  he  uses 
for  the  expression  of  the  relation  of  God  and  the 
world.  They  are  "Wisdom"  and  "Word."  The 
former  brought  its  speculative  suggestion  from  the 
first  nine  chapters  of  Proverbs,  where  Wisdom  is, 
on  one  hand,  the  creative  expression  of  God  (8.  22), 
and,  on  the  other,  the  divine  ideal  of  human  life  (8. 
1-20).  The  latter  was  drawn  from  the  numerous 
Old  Testament  expressions  of  God  as  uttering  him- 
self in  his  Word.  Both  were  fused  with  Greek  ideas 
that  are  only  somewhat  dimly  shadowed  in  the 
Hebrew  uses  of  the  terms. 

As  we  have  found,  Hebrew  thought  had  already 
a  native  term  which  admirably  expressed  the  He- 
brew sense  of  the  relation  between  God  and  the 
world.  This  was  the  term  "the  Spirit  of  God." 
It  had  a  real  content  of  thought,  was  venerable  with 
age,  and  was  found  in  every  class  of  Hebrew  lit- 
erature. On  the  other  hand,  "Wisdom,"  in  a  philo- 
sophical sense,  was  late  in  origin  and  narrow  in 
usage,  being  only  found  in  one  class  of  literature; 
while  "Word"  must  borrow  from  Greek  sources 
nearly  all  its  speculative  significance.  Looking  at 
the  matter  from  the  Hebrew  standpoint,  one  would 

88 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

expect  to  find  "Spirit"  the  great  term  of  Philonian 
philosophy.  Two  reasons  may  be  suggested  why 
it  was  not:  first  and  most  important,  the  close  af- 
finity of  "Wisdom"  (oo&a)  and  "Word"  (Adyoc) 
with  Greek  philosophy;  second,  the  very  fact  that 
the  term  "Spirit"  was  so  old  and  well  fixed  in  He- 
brew literature  and  had  received  so  definite  a  con- 
tent unfitted  it  for  the  use  of  Philo.  The  term  was 
no  longer  flexible.  Its  affiliations  were  so  closely 
linked  with  Hebrew  ideas  that  it  could  not  readily 
take  new  contents.  Yet  Philo  and  his  followers 
did  not  wholly  abandon  the  older  term,  though  their 
use  of  it  is  comparatively  slight.  A  study  of  the 
development  of  Hebrew  thought  on  this  subject 
would  be  incomplete  without  the  consideration  of 
the  form  it  assumes  here. 

Using  as  nearly  as  possible  the  same  classifica- 
tion as  in  former  sections,  we  find  the  following  uses 
of  the  Spirit  of  God: 

A.  Spirit  used  of  God  acting  in  the  sphere  of 
human  life: 

i.  For  endowment  of  individuals  with  charis- 
matic gifts: 

(a)  Prophecy: 

"It  is  not  lawful  for  a  wicked  man  to  be  an  in- 
terpreter of  God,  as  also  no  wicked  man  can  be 
said  to  be  inspired.  .  .  .  Accordingly,  all  those 
whom  Moses  describes  as  just  persons  he  also  rep- 
resented as  inspired  and  prophesying."  He  then 
instances  Noah,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Abraham,  and  Moses 
himself  (Quis  rer..div.  her.,  52). 

89 


The  Spirit  of  God 

In  the  prophetic  trance  "which  proceeds  from  in- 
spiration" "the  mind  that  is  in  us  is  removed  from 
its  place  at  the  arrival  of  the  divine  Spirit,  but  is 
again  restored  to  its  previous  habitation  when  the 
Spirit  departs,  for  it  is  contrary  to  holy  law  for 
what  is  mortal  to  dwell  with  what  is, immortal' ' 
(Quis  rer.  div.  her.,  53). 

The  beginning  of  Moses's  "divine  inspiration" 
was  at  the  Red  Sea,  when  the  Egyptians  pressed 
from  behind  upon  the  Hebrews.  "When  the 
prophet  saw  the  whole  nation  now  inclosed  like  a 
shoal  of  fish  and  in  great  consternation  he  no  longer 
remained  master  of  himself,  but  became  inspired 
and  prophesied"  (Vita  Mosis,  Lib.  Ill,  33). 

Conjectures — that  is,  inferences — are  "akin  to 
prophecy,  for  the  mind  could  never  make  such  cor- 
rect and  felicitous  conjectures,  unless  it  were  a 
divine  Spirit  which  guided  their  feet  into  the  way  of 
truth"  (Vita  Mosis,  Lib.  Ill,  36). 

(b)  Skill  in  artisan  work.  This  is  not  properly 
a  separate  division  here,  but  is  retained  from  former 
classifications  for  the  sake  of  uniformity.  In  the 
cases  cited  the  Spirit  is  obviously  used  only  because 
it  is  so  used  in  the  Old  Testament  text.  The  in- 
stances are  used  to  illustrate  (c),  below: 

"God  summoned  Bezaleel,  and  filled  him  with  his 
Holy  Spirit,  and  with  wisdom  and  understanding 
and  knowledge  to  be  able  to  devise  every  good 
work"  (De  Gigant.,  5). 

"For  the  divine  Spirit  is  not  a  motion  of  the  air, 
but  intellect  and  wisdom;  just  as  it  also  flows  over 

90 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

the  man  who  with  great  skill  constructed  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  Lord,  namely,  upon  Bezaleel,  when  the 
Scripture  says,  And  he  filled  him  with  the  divine 
Spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding"  (Quaest., 
I,  90). 

(c)  Wisdom  (see  also  (6),  above)  : 

'The  Spirit  which  is  upon  [Moses,  or  any  other 
subject  of  inspiration]  is  the  wise,  the  divine,  the 
indivisible,  the  undistributable,  the  good  Spirit,  the 
Spirit  which  is  everywhere  entirely  filled  up,1 
which,  while  it  benefits  others,  is  not  injured  by 
having  a  participation  in  it  given  to  another"  (De 
Gigant.,  6). 

"The  holy  spirit  of  discipline  will  flee  deceit,  and 
remove  from  thoughts  that  are  without  under- 
standing" (Wis.  Sol.  1.  5).  "I  prayed,  and  un- 
derstanding was  given  me:  I  called  upon  God,  and 
the  spirit  of  wisdom  came  to  me"  (7.  7).  "For  in 
her  [wisdom]  is  an  understanding  spirit"  (7.  22). 
"Thy  counsel  who  hath  known,  except  as  thou  gav- 
est  wisdom,  and  didst  send  thy  Holy  Spirit  from 
above?"  (9.  17). 

4  Mace.  7.  14:  "The  spirit  of  wisdom"  (text 
doubtful ;  Lin.  reads  tgj  Trvevfiari  did  rov  Xoyiafxov) . 

2.  As  the  substrate  of  rational  life.  A  use  not 
specifically  found  in  the  Old  Testament : 

In  commenting  on  the  passage,  "God  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life:"  "The  forma- 
tion of  the  individual  man  perceptible  by  the  exter- 
nal senses  is  a  composition  of  earthy  substance  and 

1  On  the  text  see  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  II.  316,  f. 
91 


The  Spirit  of  God 

divine  Spirit.  For  that  the  body  was  created  by 
the  Creator  taking  a  lump  of  clay  and  fashioning 
the  human  form  out  of  it;  but  that  the  soul  pro- 
ceeds from  no  created  thing  at  all,  but  from  the 
Father  and  Ruler  of  all  things.  For  when  he  uses 
the  expression  'he  breathed  into/  etc.,  he  means 
nothing  else  than  the  divine  Spirit  proceeding  from 
that  happy  and  blessed  nature,  sent  to  take  up  its 
habitation  here  on  earth,  for  the  advantage  of  our 
race,  in  order  that,  even  if  man  is  mortal  according 
to  that  portion  of  him  which  is  visible,  he  may  at 
all  events  be  immortal  according  to  that  portion 
which  is  invisible.  ...  He  is  born  at  the  same 
time  both  mortal  and  immortal;  mortal  as  to  his 
body,  but  immortal  as  to  his  intellect"  (De  Opif. 
Mundi,  46). 

"Man  was  not  formed  of  the  dust  alone,  but 
also  of  the  divine  Spirit"  (Fragment  from  John  of 
Damascus).1 

"The  divine  Spirit  is  the  essence  of  the  rational 
part  [of  the  soul],  ...  for  it  is  said,  'God  breathed 
into  his  face  the  breath  of  life' "  (Fragment 
from  John  the  Monk,  Concerning  the  Soul  and 
Mind). 

"The  essence  of  the  soul  is  truly  and  beyond  all 
question  Spirit,  .  .  .  but  has  no  independent  place, 
but  is  mingled  with  blood"  (Quaest.,  II,  59). 

"I  ordered  my  wisdom  to  make  man  from  seven 
substances,  ...  his  spirit  from  my  Spirit  and  from 
wind"  (Secrets  of  Enoch  30.  5). 

1  References  to  Fragments  are  to  the  Tauchnitz  edition. 
92 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

B.  Spirit  used  of  God  acting  in  the  physical 
world : 

i.  As  the  basis  of  physical  life.  This  has  no  sep- 
arate representation  here.  It  must  be  combined  with 
God  acting  on  external  nature  apart  from  man. 
Both  together  make 

2.  Spirit  used  of  God  in  his  relation  of  cosmical 
immanence : 

"The  mind,  which  is  intrinsically  light,"  can  "be 
raised  up  by  the  nature  of  the  divine  Spirit,  which 
is  able  to  do  everything  and  to  subdue  all  things,  be- 
low," as  material  things  may  be  raised  by  the  wind 
(De  Plant.  Noe,  6).  Though  the  direct  reference 
is  to  the  mind,  yet  the  words  "to  subdue  all  things" 
seem  to  go  beyond  mental  action,  and  to  have  a 
cosmical  significance.  Yet  perhaps  the  fact  that 
this  is  the  only  case  of  such  a  significance  in  Philo 
should  make  us  careful  not  to  insist  too  strongly 
upon  this  interpretation. 

"Because  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  hath  filled  the 
earth,  and  that  which  sustaineth  the  universe  [rd 
irdvra,  the  all]  hath  knowledge  of  the  voice"  (Wis. 
Sol.  i.  7). 

"For  in  her  [wisdom]  is  an  understanding 
spirit,  .  .  .  having  all  power,  overseeing  all  things, 
and  permeating  all  intelligent,  pure,  and  most  subtile 
spirits"  (Wis.  Sol.  7.  22,  23). 

"For  thy  incorruptible  Spirit  is  in  all  things  [kv 
-naoivY  (Wis.  Sol.  12.  1). 

Gforrer  has  pointed  out  that  the  Spirit  is  used 
in  Philo  only  where  it  is  brought  over  from  the  Old 

93 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Testament,  but  certain  differences  in  usage  are 
immediately  obvious.  The  first  is  the  great  empha- 
sis on  the  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  wisdom. 
The  second  is  the  lack  of  the  national  sentiment  in 
connection  with  the  Spirit.  This  arises  from  its 
close  relation  to  wisdom,  which,  following  out  the 
suggestions  of  the  Wisdom  literature,  is  not  con- 
ceived of  as  national,  but  as  cosmic.  Philo's  pur- 
pose, also,  does  not  lead  him  to  deal  with  the 
national  hope.  A  consequence  of  these  things  is 
the  total  disappearance  of  the  Messianic  hope,  and 
so  of  the  Spirit  as  a  force  in  the  Messianic  time. 
This  takes  away  from  the  Alexandrian  thought  the 
hope,  which  always  remained  a  living  power  amid 
all  the  Palestinian  dogma,  of  a  time  in  the  future 
when  the  Spirit  should  again  be  a  potent  fact  in 
actual  life,  once  more  entering  into  experience  in 
new  forms  and  with  a  more  powerful  energy  than 
ever  before.1 

The  peculiarities  of  Philo's  idea  of  the  Spirit  as 
related  to  God  depend  primarily  upon  his  cosmic 
conceptions.  In  Palestinian  Judaism  there  was,  as 
we  have  seen,  a  growth  of  the  term  "Spirit" 
to  mean  God  himself,  God's  being  apart  from  God 
conceived  as  acting,  God  ab  intra.     Philo  does  not 

1  In  order  to  complete  the  uses  of  spirit  the  following  are  added: 

C  Used  of  angels  : 

"  The  essence  of  angels  is  spiritual,  but  they  are  very  often  made  to 
resemble  the  appearance  of  men "  (Fragment  from  John  of  Damascus; 
comp.  Quaest.,  I,  92). 

D.  Used  of  human  beings,  equivalent  to  souls: 

"All  intelligent,  pure,  and  most  subtile  spirits"  (Wis.  Sol.  7.  23).  It 
would  be  possible  to  interpret  nvEVfiara  here  of  angels  or  other  non-human 
beings,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  real  demand  for  it.  . 

"A  man  indeed  killeth  in  his  wickedness;  but  the  spirit,  when  it  hath 
gone  forth,  he  bringeth  not  back  "  (Wis.  Sol.  16.  14). 

94 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

use  it  in  this  sense,  for  the  reason  that  his  concep- 
tion of  God  did  not  allow  it.  The  essence  of  God 
remains  unknown.  That  he  exists  is  evident,  but 
what  is  the  noumenal  content  of  that  existence  must 
remain  hidden.  He  is  without  qualities.  The  Spirit 
which  is  the  expression  of  God  cannot  then  be  iden- 
tical with  God  ab  intra,  since  he  in  his  real  nature 
is  inexpressible. 

But  if  the  Spirit  is  not  used  as  the  equivalent  of 
God  himself  in  his  eternal  nature,  is  it  equivalent 
to  the  powers  of  God?  That  it  stands  in  close  con- 
nection with  the  two  most  prominent  of  these 
powers,  Wisdom  and  the  Logos,  is  plain.  Is  it 
identical  with  them,  thus  forming  a  triad  of  biblical 
expressions  for  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world, 
or  is  there  such  a  difference  between  them  that  the 
relation  becomes  other  than  that  of  mere  parallelism? 

Certainly  some  passages  seem  to  imply  an  actual 
identity  with  Wisdom.  It  is  directly  defined,  in  the 
passage  based  on  Bezaleel's  possession  of  the  Spirit 
for  work  in  the  tabernacle,  as  "wisdom  and  under- 
standing and  knowledge  to  be  able  to  devise  any 
work/'  Once  again,  returning  to  the  same  incident 
of  Bezaleel,  Philo  says,  "The  divine  Spirit  is  not  a 
motion  of  the  air,  but  intellect  and  wisdom."  Here 
is  an  obvious  reference  to  the  literal  meaning  of 
nvevfia  as  air.  Philo  means  that  he  is  not  using 
the  word  in  this  sense.  As  Wisdom  the  Spirit  can- 
not dwell  with  man  forever,  since  the  "disposition 
of  the  flesh  is  inconsistent  with  wisdom"  (De 
Gigant.,  5;  Quaest.,  I,  90;  in  both  the  above  cases 

95 


The  Spirit  of  God 

he  is  commenting  on  Gen.  6.  8,  "My  Spirit  shall 
not  always  dwell  with  man").  Spirit  is  then  in 
one  of  its  uses  an  equivalent  of  Wisdom,  as  one  of 
the  powers  of  God.  This  identity  is  approached  in 
Wis.  Sol.  7.  22,  "An  understanding  spirit  is  in 
wisdom"  (some  texts,  "is  wisdom,"  omitting  kv). 
Still,  perhaps  by  reason  of  its  traditional  Hebrew 
use,  it  is  only  identified  with  Wisdom  when  in  re- 
lation to  the  mind  of  man.  The  distinction  becomes 
more  sharp  as  we  study  the  uses  of  Wisdom  itself. 
Wisdom  has  certain  cosmical  relations.  It  stands 
as  the  highest  of  the  divine  powers.  It  is  the  me- 
dium of  creation.  The  Spirit  is  not  given  such 
cosmical  relations.  Indeed,  it  is  never  used  at  all 
in  this  sense  by  Philo,  although  it  is  by  the  writer 
of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.  The  fact  that  Philo 
only  uses  it  where  it  is  carried  over  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  that  in  the  Old  Testament  passages 
which  fall  under  his  consideration  the  use  is  always 
the  charismatic,  would  seem  to  explain  his  lack  of 
the  cosmical  usage  in  connection  with  Wisdom. 
The  definition  of  this  form  of  the  idea  may  be 
stated  as  follows :  The  Spirit  is  Wisdom  considered 
as  an  endowment  of  man's  soul  for  special  ends  and 
at  special  times. 

The  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Logos  depends 
on  the  relation  between  the  Logos  and  Wisdom,  for 
the  Spirit  is  never  set  in  direct  connection  with  the 
Logos.  The  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Logos 
and  Wisdom  is  not  one  belonging  properly  to  this 
study,  and  comprises  such  curious  equalities  and 

96 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

subordinations  and  seeming  contradictions  that  it 
would  demand  more  space  than  we  could  afford  it. 
The  matter  is  fully  investigated  in  Drummond, 
Philo  Judacus,  II,  201-213.  The  general  conclusion 
is  that  the  Logos  and  Wisdom  are  ultimately  iden- 
tical. Our  interest  in  this  is  that  the  Spirit  is  thus 
made  ultimately  identical  in  its  essence  with  the 
Logos. 

What  now  shall  we  say  of  the  relation  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  created  world  ?  We  have  seen  that  the 
Hebrew  conception  of  the  Spirit  had  its  origin  in 
an  explanation  of  the  relation  of  God  to  man,  and 
that  only  in  post-exilic  times  was  it  used  with  a 
cosmic  significance.  In  Alexandrian  Judaism  it 
is  also  used  in  a  cosmic  sense,  but  only  in  the  most 
general  way  and  in  rare  passages.  The  reason  for 
the  rarity  of  its  use  is  plain.  The  Logos  and  Wis- 
dom have  taken  its  place.  The  emphasis  of  it  is 
once  more,  as  in  ancient  Hebrew  thought,  thrown 
upon  the  inspiration  of  man.  In  Philo  the  Spirit 
is  said  to  "subdue  all  things.,,  Here,  though  the 
context  is  of  the  mind,  the  Spirit  as  a  cosmic  force 
would  seem  to  be  meant.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
gives  a  few  more  passages,  though  almost  as  vague 
and  general.  Here  it  is  said  that  the  Spirit  in  wis- 
dom "oversees  all  things"  (7.  22),  "filleth  the 
earth"  (1.  7),  and  is  "an  incorruptible  Spirit  in 
all  things"  (12.  1).  That  here  is  a  side  glance  at 
the  Platonic  soul  of  the  universe  may  very  likely 
be  true.  Plato's  word  for  it  is  vovc.  He  never 
uses  -rrvevfia  in  the  cosmic  sense.     When  the  Alex- 

(7)  97 


The  Spirit  of  God 

andrian  writers  thus  use  it  probably  one  must  al- 
ways see  the  reflection  of  Hebrew  terminology.  As 
already  noted,  Philo  never  uses  nvevfia  except  when 
led  to  do  so  by  the  use  of  the  biblical  passage  upon 
which  he  is  commenting.  The  author  of  Wisdom 
combines  a  Hebrew  term  with  Greek  thought. 

The  fullest  passage  is  that  whose  concluding 
clause  is  quoted  above  (Wis.  Sol.  n.  24  to  12.  1)  : 
"For  thou  lovest  all  the  things  that  are,  and  abhor- 
rest  nothing  that  thou  didst  make ;  for  if  thou  hadst 
hated  anything,  thou  wouldest  not  have  made  it. 
And  how  could  anything  have  persisted  if  it  had 
not  been  thy  will,  or  been  preserved  if  not  called 
into  existence  by  thee?  But  thou  sparest  all  be- 
cause they  are  thine,  O  Lord,  thou  lover  of  souls. 
For  thine  incorruptible  [deathless,  d^OaQTov]  Spirit 
is  in  all  things."  The  loving  care  of  God  over  his 
creation  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it  embodies  his 
Spirit.  This  is  quite  plainly  a  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  immanence.  The  cosmos  is  God's  own; 
it  contains  his  own  expression;  his  Spirit  not  only 
created  it,  but  is  in  it.  This  is  the  philosophical 
side  of  that  conception  of  relationship  which  has  its 
ethical  expression  in  the  Hebrew  notion  of  holi- 
ness. There  it  was  the  relation  of  ownership  based 
on  creation;  here  it  is  the  relation  of  ownership 
based  on  consubstantiality ;  but  in  both  the  empha- 
sis is  on  the  relation,  not  on  its  ground.  The  prin- 
ciple of  the  permanence  of  the  cosmos  is  based  upon 
the  idea  of  the  indwelling  Spirit.  That  Spirit  is 
deathless  (d^daprov).     Therefore,  since  it  is  in  the 

98 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

universe,  the  universe  abides.  Thus  the  ground  of 
the  uniformity  of  law,  or,  in  other  words,  of  the 
permanence  of  phenomena,  is  laid  for  this  author 
in  the  permanence  of  God.  Compare  7.  22-27, 
where  the  permanence  of  wisdom  is  due  to  a  Spirit 
in  her. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  author  of  Wisdom 
is  not  dealing  with  the  eternity  of  the  cosmos  or 
with  its  independent  existence,  but  only  with  its 
permanence  in  the  realm  of  experience.  Philo, 
however,  deals  with  the  problem  of  the  eternity  of 
the  cosmos.  The  treatise  on  the  Incorruptibility  of 
the  World  rests  under  suspicion.  Zeller  supposes 
it  to  be  the  production  of  a  Peripatetic,  revised  by 
a  Jew  of  the  Alexandrian  school.  Schiirer  says 
that  its  genuineness  has  been  "generally  given  up" 
(Jewish  People,  II,  3,  page  359).  It  deals  with 
the  relation  of  God  to  the  universe  only  in  the 
fashion  of  a  dialectic  on  the  perfection  of  God.  If 
the  universe  is  destroyed,  it  must  be  either  in  order 
that  no  other  may  be  produced  or  that  a  new  one 
may  be  created.  Both  are  impossible,  for  both 
would  imply  less  than  perfection  in  the  work  of 
God;  the  first  in  his  work  in  the  future,  the  sec- 
ond in  his  work  in  the  present.  Here  there  is 
obviously  no  kinship  to  the  idea  that  the  permanence 
of  the  cosmos  is  because  of  the  immanence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  it. 

But  aside  from  this  more  than  doubtful  treatise 
the  subject  is  touched,  though  briefly,  elsewhere. 
The  world  is  imperishable,  but  because  it  is  in  a 

99 


The  Spirit  of  God 

state  of  constant  flux,  not  because  of  its  stability; 
for  it  is  not  stable.  The  creations  of  God  differ 
from  those  of  man  because  the  "ends  of  things  God 
creates  are  the  beginnings  of  other  things"  (Leg. 
Alleg.,  I,  3).  For  example,  the  end  of  day  is  the 
beginning  of  night.  So  transformation,  not  destruc- 
tion, is  the  order  of  the  universe.  "It  is  by  pro- 
portion [of  its  elements]  that  the  whole  world  is 
compounded  together  and  united  and  endowed  with 
consistency  so  as  to  remain  firm  forever,  proportion 
having  distributed  equality  to  all  its  parts"  (Quis 
rer.  div.  her.,  30).  Compare  De  Opif.  Mundi,  27, 
where  man  and  heaven  are  placed  in  comparison, 
each  as  the  best  of  its  kind :  the  heaven,  the  best  of 
incorruptible  things;  man,  the  best  of  perishable 
things. 

It  is  tempting  to  say  that  the  preeminence  of  the 
things  of  God's  creation  over  those  of  man's  as 
presented  in  the  first  passage  may  be  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was  conceived  of  as  in 
them,  but  the  second  passage  seems  to  put  it  on 
quite  a  different  ground,  namely,  the  constitution  of 
the  cosmos  itself.  Indeed,  if  Philo  held  to  the  eter- 
nity of  matter  and  made  the  creation  its  organiza- 
tion, not  its  origination,  as  Drummond  suggests 
(I,  299,  ff.),  there  is  little  chance  for  this  attractive 
speculation  to  be  true. 

One  expects  to  find  Philo's  treatment  of  the  Spirit 
as  a  cosmic  principle  more  fully  expressed  in  his 
comments  on  Gen.  1.  2,  "The  Spirit  of  God  moved 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  than  anywhere  else. 

100 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

But  instead  of  that  he  treats  nvevfia  here  simply  in 
its  literal  meaning  of  air,  which  forms  a  third  ele- 
ment with  water  and  earth,  and  no  cosmic  signifi- 
cance is  given  to  the  passage  (see  De  Gigant.,  5). 
In  the  treatise  De  Opif.  Mundi  it  is  treated  in  the 
same  way.  There  is  no  quotation  of  the  passage 
itself,  but  the  following  sentences  seem  to  be  based 
on  it :  "In  the  first  place,  therefore,  from  the  model 
of  the  world  perceptible  only  by  intellect,  the  Cre- 
ator made  an  incorporeal  heaven  and  an  invisible 
earth,  and  the  form  of  air  and  of  empty  spaces: 
the  former  of  which  he  called  darkness,  because  the 
air  is  black  by  nature;  and  the  other  he  called  the 
abyss,  for  empty  space  is  very  deep  and  yawning 
with  immense  width.  Then  he  created  the  incor- 
poreal substance  of  water  and  of  air,  and  above 
all  he  spread  light.  .  .  .  And  air  and  light  he 
considered  worthy  of  preeminence.  For  the  one  he 
called  the  breath  of  God,  because  it  is  air,  which 
is  the  most  life-giving  of  things,  and  of  life  the 
cause  is  God;  and  the  other  he  called  light,  because 
it  is  surpassingly  beautiful"  (7.  8). 

To  conclude:  In  Philo  the  Spirit  is  used  only 
once  of  the  power  of  God  active  in  the  world.  In 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  it  is  used  in  the  same  mean- 
ing, with  the  added  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  inherent 
in  the  cosmos,  thus  forming  the  ground  of  confi- 
dence in  its  permanence  and  its  place  in  the  power 
of  God.  The  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  the  direct 
cause  of  particular  phenomena  in  nature,  a  use  so 
frequent  in  Hebrew  literature  when  the  Spirit  first 

101 


The  Spirit  of  God 

began  to  be  thought  of  as  applied  to  nature,  is 
here,  as  in  Palestinian  Judaism,  totally  lacking. 

In  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  man  Hebrew 
thought  brought  to  Alexandrian  Judaism  two  ele- 
ments: the  Spirit  as  a  permanent  basis  of  rational 
life,  and  the  charismatic  Spirit  as  the  ground  of 
special  gifts.  But  Greek  philosophy  brought  to  it 
what  early  Hebrew  thought  never  possessed,  the 
philosophic  theory  of  a  soul.  We  are  not  here  con- 
cerned with  the  origin  and  constituent  elements  of 
this  theory,  but  with  its  form  as  found  in  Philo. 

The  soul  is  used  by  Philo  in  two  senses:  (a)  The 
soul  in  its  sensorium,  the  sum  total  of  living  person- 
ality apart  from  the  body;  and  (b)  the  rational  soul, 
the  human  spirit,  which  constitutes  the  essential  per- 
sonality. The  first  is  shown,  among  other  passages, 
in  the  comments  on  "Thou  shalt  not  eat  the  flesh 
with  the  blood:"  "For  there  are  three  divisions 
of  the  soul:  the  one  part  nutritious,  a  second 
endowed  with  the  outward  senses,  and  the  third 
endowed  with  reason."  It  is  the  second  part  of 
which  "the  divine  nvevw  is  the  essence,"  for  it  is 
said,  "God  breathed  into  his  face  the  breath  of 
life."  Drummond  (I,  page  320,  f.)  maintains  that 
the  meaning  of  nvevfia  here  is  air,  and  that  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  fragment  in  Armenian  proves  it. 
It  is  certainly  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  that  we 
have  rtvevfia  used  in  the  sense  of  air  in  a  cosmic  rela- 
tion; but  compare  De  Special.  Legibus,  Concerning 
the  Life  of  Man,  I:  "For  the  essence  of  the  soul 
of  man  is  the  breath  of  God.  .  .  .     That  which 

102 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

was  thus  breathed  into  his  face  was  manifestly  the 
breath  of  the  air,  or  whatever  else  there  may  be 
which  is  even  more  excellent  than  the  breath  of 
the  air,  as  being  a  ray  emitted  from  the  blessed  and 
thrice-happy  nature  of  God."  This  seems  to  sug- 
gest that  the  principle  of  even  the  more  irrational 
part  of  the  soul  may  be  some  substance  of  which 
air  is  only  a  coarser  and  cruder  representation.  On 
such  matters  it  is  not  impossible  that  we  may  be 
obliged  to  allow  a  certain  vagueness  in  the  expres- 
sions of  Philo. 

Of  the  rational  soul,  however,  it  is  said  that  the 
divine  Spirit  is  its  essence:  "The  divine  Spirit  is 
the  essence  of  the  rational  part,  .  .  .  for  he 
says,  'God  breathed  into  his  face  the  breath  of 
life/  "  Nay,  the  soul  is  an  immigrant  into  this 
sphere  of  human  life.  It  originally  came  down 
from  above  and  goes  back  to  the  place  whence  it 
came  (Quaest,  III,  10).  "Souls  are  sent  down  from 
heaven  to  earth  as  to  a  colony"  (De  Conf.  Ling., 
17).  This  accounts  for  the  longing  they  have  to 
return  to  their  original  country.  Souls,  demons, 
and  angels  are  really  one  and  the  same  thing  (De 
Incor.  Mundi),  but  souls  have,  for  some  unex- 
plained reason,  taken  up  their  abode  in  mortal  bod- 
ies, as  the  others  have  not.  They  are  spiritual  ex- 
istences made  in  the  likeness,  not  of  the  Most  High, 
for  that  would  not  be  fitting,  but  of  the  Logos 
(Fragment  from  Eus.,  Prep,  of  the  Gospel).  Be- 
fore the  fall  the  divine  Spirit  was  more  evident  than 
now   (Fragment  from  John  of  Damascus).     The 

103 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Wisdom  of  Solomon  has  also  the  same  idea  of  the 
soul  as  an  immigrant  from  a  region  outside,  though 
not  saying  in  express  terms  that  the  soul  is  a  spir- 
itual essence.  "Being  good,  I  came  into  a  body 
undented"  (Wis.  Sol.  8.  20). 

The  difference  between  Philo  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment thought  is  interesting.  In  the  Old  Testament 
the  Spirit  is  the  transcendental  part  of  man,  and  of 
beast  as  well.  It  is  not  in  itself  personal,  and  could 
never  be  called  a  soul.  It  is  not  a  separate  entity. 
It  is  the  power  of  God  expressing  itself  in  life. 
Without  this  power  of  God  there  is  no  life.  When 
that  is  withdrawn  life  disappears.  In  Philo  the 
Spirit  is  not  an  impersonal  power  of  God,  dependent 
for  its  operation  upon  the  divine  will,  but  a  distinct 
entity.  It  is  spiritual  in  its  nature — that  is,  it  be- 
longs to  a  class  of  beings  whose  essential  quality  is 
that  they  partake  of  the  characteristics  of  the  divine 
Logos  or  Wisdom.  Quite  in  accord  with  the  gen- 
eral trend  of  Alexandrian  thought,  the  emphasis  is 
no  longer  laid  on  the  direct  communion  of  God  with 
men,  but  on  the  series  of  gradations  from  God  to 
men. 

To  represent  it  graphically,  Hebrew  thought 
makes  the  steps  of  relation  thus :  God  (=  Spirit) 
—  men.  Alexandrian  thought,  thus :  God  —  Logos 
(=  Spirit)  —  souls  —  men. 

In  the  later  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  the 
Spirit  plays  a  vital  part  as  the  expression  of  God 
in  creation.  Here  that  function  is  performed  by 
the  Logos,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  cosmic  sense  is  a 

104 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

supernumerary,  only  used  of  the  creation  of  the  ra- 
tional soul,  and  yet  the  Spirit  is  not  differentiated 
from  the  Logos  in  any  essential  manner.  The  same 
cannot  be  said  of  the  cosmic  relation  in  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  where  the  Spirit  fulfills  a  real  purpose 
in  relating  the  universe  to  God. 

The  charismatic  Spirit  has  a  much  narrower  range 
than  in  Hebrew  literature  of  either  the  earlier  or 
the  later  periods.  It  concerns  itself  with  two  fields 
only:  the  gift  of  wisdom  and  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
The  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  wisdom  has  been 
already  touched  upon.  In  Philo  it  is  a  common 
thought,  and  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  is  not 
infrequent  (see  I.  5;  7.  7,  22;  9.  17).  There  it 
is  considered  as  being  sent  from  God  (9.  17)  in 
answer  to  prayer  (7.  7). 

In  Philo  the  typical  instance,  twice  used,  is  that 
of  Bezaleel.  It  is,  as  shown  in  this  case,  "wisdom 
and  understanding  and  knowledge  to  be  able  to  de- 
vise any  work"  (De  Gigant.,  5).  "The  divine  Spirit 
is  not  a  motion  of  the  air,  but  intellect  and  wisdom ; 
just  as  it  flows  over  .  .  .  Bezaleel"  (Quaest,  I, 
90).  This  Spirit  is  a  single  force.  It  is  not  sep- 
arated by  being  divided,  as  when  it  is  taken  from 
Moses  and  put  in  the  seventy  elders.  Like  fire,  it 
can  light  others,  yet  not  be  diminished  itself  (De 
Gigant.,  5,  6).  This  last  passage  is  interesting  as 
a  reminiscence  of  the  Old  Testament  conception  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  single  basis  of  a  variety 
of  phenomena.  We  have  seen  that  separate  souls 
take  the  place  of  the  single  divine  Spirit  as  the 

105 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ground  of  rational  life,  but  as  the  ground  of  charis- 
matic gifts  Philo  still  keeps  the  old  Hebrew  idea 
of  the  single  and  indivisible  Spirit. 

Philo  distinctly  regards  the  charismatic  Spirit  as 
temporary.  "The  Spirit  comes  upon  men,  but  does 
not  continue  or  abide  in  them,  .  .  .  because  they 
are  flesh"  (Quaest.,  I,  90).  A  passage  already 
quoted,  on  page  90,  would  seem  to  suggest  that 
Philo  may  have  regarded  the  charismatic  Spirit  as 
a  temporary  substitute  for  the  permanent  possession 
of  the  Spirit,  which  would  have  been  man's  priv- 
ilege had  he  continued  without  sin.  It  is  temporary 
because  of  the  impossibility  of  the  permanent  con- 
nection between  the  Spirit  and  the  flesh.  Possibly 
the  experience  of  a  temporary  "frenzy"  in  prophecy 
may  have  combined  with  the  Philonian  philosophical 
positions  in  producing  this  idea. 

Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  has  been,  up  to  this 
point,  a  matter  of  tradition  and  dogma  rather  than 
of  experience.  In  the  charismatic  Spirit  of  proph- 
ecy one  approaches  the  field  of  his  own  experience. 
He  himself  had  been  a  subject  of  visions  which 
he  could  explain  by  no  natural  means.  There  had 
been  moments  when  he  had  seemed  lifted  out  of 
himself,  possessed  by  a  power  that  was  not  himself. 
This  could  be  none  other  than  a  work  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  The  passage  in  which  these  experiences  is 
described  is  worthy  of  being  quoted  in  full : 

"I  am  not  ashamed  to  relate  what  has  happened 
to  me  myself,  which  I  know  from  having  experi- 
enced it  ten  thousand  times.     Sometimes,  when  I 

106 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

have  desired  to  come  to  my  usual  employment  of 
writing  on  the  doctrines  of  philosophy,  though  I 
have  known  accurately  what  it  was  proper  to  set 
down,  I  have  found  my  mind  barren  and  unpro- 
ductive, and  have  been  completely  unsuccessful  in 
my  object,  being  indignant  at  my  mind  for  the 
uncertainty  and  vanity  of  its  then  existing  opinions, 
and  filled  with  amazement  at  the  power  of  the 
living  God,1  by  whom  the  womb  of  the  soul  is  at 
times  opened  and  at  times  closed  up.  And  some- 
times when  I  have  come  to  my  work  empty  I  have 
suddenly  become  full,  ideas  being,  in  an  invisible 
manner,  showered  upon  me  and  implanted  in  me 
from  on  high;  so  that,  through  the  influence  of 
divine  inspiration,  I  was  filled  with  enthusiasm, 
and  have  known  neither  the  place  in  which  I  was, 
nor  those  who  were  present,  nor  myself,  nor  what 
I  was  saying,  nor  what  I  was  writing;  for  then  I 
have  been  conscious  of  a  stream  of  interpretation, 
an  enjoyment  of  light,  a  most  penetrating  sight,  a 
most  manifest  energy2  in  all  that  was  to  be  done, 
having  such  an  effect  on  my  mind  as  the  clearest 
ocular  demonstration  would  have  on  the  eyes"  (De 
Migration.  Abraham,  7). 

Few  passages  in  the  literature  of  this  subject  are 
more  important  than  this.  Here  is  a  philosopher, 
a  careful  thinker,  capable  of  introspection,  speaking 
frankly  of  his  own  experience  as  the  illustration  of 
his  conception  of  the  contact  of  God  with  man.    It 

1  Him  who  is  (Drummond,  I,   14). 

"Rather   read  tvapytiav,   ''distinct  view  of   the  subjects  treated"  (see 
Drummond,  I,  15). 

107 


The  Spirit  of  God 

marks  the  intensity  and  vividness  of  this  experience 
that  he  drops  his  philosophy  of  "powers"  and  "en- 
ergies" and  speaks  of  the  contact  with  God  as  simply 
and  directly  as  any  old  Hebrew  prophet.  It  is  not 
Wisdom  or  the  Logos  that  came  upon  him,  but  God 
himself,  "the  all-accomplishing  Father,"  "He  who 
is."    This  is  not  dogma,  but  life. 

It  is  possible  to  make  a  psychological  analysis  of 
this  experience.  It  has  several  elements  of  origin. 
The  first  is  intellectual.  The  experience  came  at 
moments  when  the  mind  was  extremely  active  and 
closely  attentive  to  the  subjects  of  its  thought,  so 
absorbed  in  them  that  it  became  oblivious  to  all 
about.  The  second  element  is  one  of  feeling.  Ac- 
companying the  stress  of  attention  was  an  emotion 
which  he  recognized  under  the  name  of  enthusiasm 
(icopv(3avTiav)  /  while  the  subjective  result  was  also 
an  emotion  which  he  seems  to  distinguish,  very 
properly,  from  the  "enthusiasm"  of  the  process  it- 
self. The  third  element  is  the  sense  of  the  worth 
of  the  results,  considered  not  as  objective  thought- 
products,  but  as  subjective  feelings  which  have 
their  place  in  the  highest  ranges  of  personal  life. 
The  fourth  element  is  the  sense  of  the  remoteness 
of  this  experience  from  the  normal  life.  It  is 
not  the  usual  mental  processes  that  are  the  ground 
of  this  experience.  They  offer  no  analogy  to  it  or 
explanation  of  it.  One  hesitates  at  first  as  to 
whether  this  should  not  be  called  rather  an  infer- 


1  The  use  of  this  word,  with  its  connotation  of  wild  and  uncontrolled  ex- 
citement, is  significant. 

108 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

ence  from  the  experience,  but  it  seems  to  be  so 
interwoven  into  its  emotional  content  that  one  is 
compelled  to  regard  it  as  a  primary  factor  of  the 
experience  and  itself  a  ground  for  the  further  in- 
tensity of  the  ecstasy.  Philo's  conclusion  was  that 
the  moments  of  ecstasy  into  which  these  factors 
entered  were  only  to  be  accounted  for  as  the  direct 
inspiration  of  God. 

In  the  light  of  this  experience  must  be  interpreted 
all  that  Philo  says  of  Hebrew  prophecy.  His  fullest 
treatment  of  it  is  given  in  connection  with  Moses. 
When  Moses  saw  the  people  entrapped  at  the  Red 
Sea  "he  no  longer  remained  master  of  himself,  but 
became  inspired,  and  prophesied"  (Vita  Mosis,  III, 
34).  This  was  the  beginning  of  his  divine  inspira- 
tion. In  the  speech  that  follows  Moses  is  repre- 
sented as  seeing  the  Egyptians  overwhelmed  in  the 
Red  Sea.  So  in  the  destruction  of  Korah  he  saw 
what  immediately  afterward  happened.  He  also 
gave  oracles  about  manna,  the  Sabbath,  the  destruc- 
tion of  Korah,  and  his  own  death.  A  frenzy  which 
left  no  consciousness  is  supposed.  The  soul  abdi- 
cated its  seat,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  took  its  place, 
using  the  body  as  the  medium  of  its  supernatural 
manifestations. 

What  are  the  antecedents  of  Philo's  theory  of  in- 
spiration? First,  his  own  experience.  However 
mechanical  the  above  theory  may  have  become  when 
held  in  modern  dogmatic  theology,  historical  theol- 
ogy must  never  forget  that  with  Philo  it  was  simply 
the  application  to  the  Old  Testament  prophets  of  what 

109 


The  Spirit  of  God 

he  believed  to  be  his  own  experience.  The  strong 
ethical  element  in  prophecy  was  marked  in  his  expe- 
rience by  the  emphasis  on  the  religious  and  moral 
worth  of  the  results.  It  was  marked,  in  his  con- 
ception of  the  Old  Testament  prophecy,  by  the  de- 
mand for  righteousness  in  the  prophet.  "No  wicked 
man  can  properly  be  said  to  be  inspired;''  "for  a 
prophet  says  nothing  of  his  own,  but  everything 
which  he  says  is  strange  and  prompted  by  some  one 
else,"  and  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  wicked  man  to  be 
the  interpreter  of  God  (Quis  rer.  div.  her.,  52). 
Here  speaks  the  Hebrew,  with  the  ethical  concep- 
tion of  God,  and  so  of  a  prophet  in  connection  with 
God.  A  curious  contradiction,  which  perhaps 
marks  the  Greek  element,  is  found  in  Flaccus,  2 1 : 
"For  every  man's  soul  is  very  prophetic,  especially 
of  such  as  are  in  misfortune."  Not  only  is  every 
man,  especially  those  in  misfortune,  given  this  gift, 
but  the  passage  is  about  Flaccus,  whom  Philo 
especially  hated  as  a  monster  of  iniquity.  With 
this  may  be  compared  De  Somniis,  II,  1,  where  the 
third  class  of  dreams  are  those  in  which  the  mind 
is  set  in  motion  by  itself,  and  filled  with  "frenzy 
and  inspiration,  so  as  to  predict  future  events  with 
a  certain  prophetic  .power."  In  both  cases  a  closer 
examination  shows  that  the  "prophecy"  is  wholly 
lacking  in  the  elements  of  moral  and  religious  emo- 
tion, which  are  so  strong  in  the  narrative  of  Philo's 
experience.  God  is  not  even  mentioned.  In  fact, 
the  last  passage  quoted  makes  the  power  of  proph- 
ecy a  quality  of  the  soul  itself.  It  is  simply  fore- 
no 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

telling  (comp.  Sibylline  Oracles,  III,  816,  f.,  297, 
ff.,  163,  491).  It  finds  its  appropriate  representa- 
tive in  the  widespread  belief  in  "second  sight." 
This  idea  of  prophecy  also  was  founded  on  ex- 
perience, but  experience  of  quite  a  different  nature 
from  Philo's  lofty  joy  in  conscious  communion  with 
God.  Philo,  then,  like  Hebrew  history,  has  two 
kinds  of  prophecy,  a  higher  and  a  lower,  and  the 
two  sets  of  terms  used  in  describing  it  show  that 
he  meant  quite  different  things  by  the  two  kinds 
of  use. 

It  is  usually  held  that  this  theory  of  inspiration 
rested  upon  Greek  sources.  Beyond  doubt  Greek 
ideas  were  factors  in  it.  The  inspiration  of  the 
oracle  is  like  the  inspiration  of  Moses.  A  frenzy 
is  the  accompaniment  of  inspiration.  A  state  of 
trance  is  natural  to  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  phenomena  of  prophecy  as  Philo  considered  it 
take  much  of  their  coloring  from  Greek  conceptions. 
The   same   idea   appears   in  the  Sibylline  Oracles 

(III,  812-816)  : 

"  Others  say 
I  am  a  sibyl  and  of  Circe  born 
And  father  Gnostos,  raving  mad  and  false. 
But  at  the  time  when  all  things  come  to  pass 
Ye  will  make  mention  of  me ;  no  one  more 
Will  call  me  mad,  but  God's  great  prophetess." 

Less  obvious  are  the  Hebrew  sources  of  Philo's 
idea.  Certainly  such  descriptions  of  the  prophetic 
method  as  are  given  in  connection  with  the  life  of 
Moses  are  entirely  aside  from  the  Hebrew  narra- 
tives of  the  same  events.    They  are  not  compatible 

in 


The  Spirit  of  God 

with  the  facts  of  higher  prophecy.  They  are,  how- 
ever, closely  akin  to  the  conceptions  of  the  lower, 
cruder  Hebrew  prophecy  of  the  earlier  period. 
Saul  among  the  prophets,  Elisha  under  the  spell  of 
music,  Balaam  compelled  to  speak  the  thing  he 
would  not,  are  best  explained  by  some  belief  kin- 
dred to  Philo's.  We  have  seen  that  without  doubt 
this  was  the  early  Hebrew  conception  of  the  source 
of  prophecy,  a  conception  based  upon  an  experience 
comparable  in  its  fundamental  factors  to  that  of 
Philo.  But  still  it  does  not  follow  that  Philo  drew 
his  conceptions  from  these  sources.  One  can  hardly, 
however,  use  the  fact  that  he  never  cites  these  cases 
to  prove  that  he  did  not  draw  from  them,  for  he 
does  not  deal  in  his  extant  writing  with  these 
portions  of  Scripture. 

The  fact  is  that  the  Greek  oracle  represented 
the  same  stage  of  religious  thought  as  the  early 
Hebrew  prophet.  In  Greece  prophecy  remained 
permanently  crystallized  in  its  lower  and  cruder 
form.  The  Hebrew  records  have  nothing  to  add  to 
that  form  which  could  not  be  gathered  from  the 
fuller  and  clearer  experience  of  Greek  life.  It  is 
not  necessary,  then,  to  posit  the  early  Old  Testa- 
ment form  of  prophecy  as  one  of  Philo's  sources, 
especially  as  we  have  no  evidence  that  he  ever  gave 
conscious  attention  to  the  particular  cases  which 
might  have  served  as  ground  for  his  concept. 

Philo's  idea  of  the  action  of  the  Spirit  in  prophecy 
forms  a  backward  movement  in  the  history  of  the 
idea  of  the  connection  of  God  with  man.     It  be- 

112 


The  Alexandrian-Jewish  Writings 

comes  important,  however,  in  the  study  of  the  in- 
terpretation which  the  writers  of  the  early  church 
put  upon  certain  events  in  the  history  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  It  was  an  essential  factor  in 
the  preparation  of  conditions  out  of  which  the  later 
Christian  theological  conception  of  the  Spirit  arose. 
Many  of  the  modern  theories  of  the  Spirit's  activity, 
notably  certain  post-reformation  theories  of  biblical 
inspiration,  allow  of  explanation  only  on  the  basis 
of  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  in  Alexandrian 
Judaism. 

(8)  113 


PART  II 

THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD  IN  NEW 
TESTAMENT  THOUGHT 


CHAPTER  I 

Introduction 

There  are  only  four  possible  factors  in  the  origin 
of  New  Testament  theological  conceptions.  They 
are  (i)  the  Hebrew  tradition,  in  which  is  included 
both  Palestinian  Judaism  and  the  Old  Testament 
system  of  thought;  (2)  Greek  influences;  (3)  the 
teaching  of  Christ;  (4)  the  experiences  of  the  early 
Christians,  in  which  are  included  the  experiences  of 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Alexandrian 
Judaism  comes  in  some  things  under  the  Hebrew 
tradition,  and  in  others  under  the  Greek  influence, 
according  to  the  affiliation  of  the  particular  elements 
with  Hebrew  or  Greek  thought.  In  some  cases  the 
Christian  thought  is  not  the  representative  of  any- 
thing existing  in  contemporary  Hebrew  conceptions, 
but  reflects  by  a  sort  of  intellectual  atavism  the 
ideas  of  ancient  Hebrew  thought.  Such  leaps  in 
the  heredity  of  religious  thought  are  not  uncommon 
where  there  are  sacred  books  to  furnish  links  of 
connection.  Some  phase  of  experience  or  of 
thought  may  produce  a  revival  of  an  idea  obscured 
by  time  and  half  forgotten.  This  is  sometimes 
only  a  passing  phase,  where  a  conception  out  of 
harmony  with  the  present  is  merely  galvanized 
into  an  artificial  semblance  of  life,  but  often  it  is 
the  application  to  present  conditions  of  an  old  idea 
which  has  actual  vital  content.     In  such  cases  the 

117 


The  Spirit  of  God 

once  antiquated  idea  becomes  a  new  force,  and 
enters  on  a  new  career  of  transformations  and  his- 
toric influences. 

Such  a  movement,  however,  has  its  real  cause 
in  some  contemporary  development  of  religious  life. 
A  partial  illustration  of  this  is  the  attempted  re- 
vival of  Mosaism,  resulting  in  the  real  revival  of 
Scribism,  in  the  Puritan  movement,  when  there  was 
an  attempt,  under  the  influence  of  a  very  genuine 
religious  impulse,  to  mold  the  state  and  certain 
social  and  religious  customs  after  the  supposed  de- 
mands of  the  Old  Testament.  Outside  of  Chris- 
tianity the  present  Vedantism  and  the  Arya  Somaj 
of  India  furnish  illustrations.  They  are  attempts 
to  revive  Hindu  philosophy  as  the  basis  of  modern 
religious  movements.  Theosophy  is  in  like  manner 
based  less  on  present  Buddhism  or  Yogaism  than 
on  an  attempt  to  interpret  the  classic  books  of  these 
religions.  Whether  any  of  these  will  prove  to  be 
more  than  the  attempted  galvanism  of  dead  ideas 
remains  yet  to  be  seen.  Something  of  this  harking 
back  to  earlier  thought  one  finds  in  certain  New 
Testament  ideas,  perhaps  nowhere  more  than  in 
the  conception  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  a  life,  a  vivid- 
ness and  force,  about  the  New  Testament  teaching 
regarding  the  Spirit  that  one  does  not  find  elsewhere 
this  side  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  prophetic  literature. 
The  likeness  of  idea  was  caused  by  the  likeness  of 
experience.  In  both  periods  belief  in  the  possession 
of  the  Spirit  was  a  factor  in  actual  life.  Thus  the 
Hebrew  tradition  and  the  experience  of  the  Chris- 

118 


Introduction 

tian  church  combine  in  the  shaping  of  this  idea. 
For  the  rest  the  idea  depends  largely  on  contempo- 
rary Palestinian-Jewish  ideas. 

The  chief  points  of  the  Palestinian-Jewish  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit  were,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
withdrawal  of  the  activity  of  the  Spirit  from  phys- 
ical nature,  the  limitation  of  its  operation  to  the 
range  of  human  activities,  the  use  of  it  to  explain 
the  ancient  national  history  and  literature,  the  de- 
nial of  its  activity  in  contemporary  life,  and  the 
expectation  that  it  would  once  more  operate  in  the 
future  Messianic  kingdom.  All  these  assumptions 
lie  in  the  background  of  the  earliest  New  Testa- 
ment thought  on  the  subject.  Here,  too,  it  is  used 
only  of  man,  never  of  nature.  Its  application  to 
the  history  and  writings  of  ancient  Israel  is  one  of 
the  most  frequent  New  Testament  usages,  while  the 
idea  of  the  working  of  the  Spirit  as  a  part  of  the 
Messianic  program  is  the  main  taproot  from  which 
springs  the  entire  growth  of  the  peculiar  New 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  Spirit.  Two  elements  of 
Jewish  conception  which  may  seem  at  first  sight 
contradictory  to  the  New  Testament  doctrine  are 
the  moral  and  religious  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
denial  of  the  Spirit's  operation  in  present  life.  The 
last,  however,  is  only  a  seeming  discrepancy,  for 
the  Christian  belief  that  the  Messianic  age  had  come 
carried  with  it,  on  the  presupposition  of  Judaism, 
the  idea  of  the  present  operation  of  the  Spirit.  The 
Spirit  as  working  in  the  purely  ethical  and  religious 
realm  was  not  a  thought  that  was  particularly  dom- 

119 


The  Spirit  of  God 

inant  in  later  Judaism.  The  course  of  development 
which  was  begun  in  Psa.  51  and  139  never  reached 
in  Judaism  its  full  fruition.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  in  the  first  Christian  century  it  formed  any 
appreciable  element  of  Judaic  thought.  We  shall 
not  be  surprised,  then,  to  find  that  early  Christianity 
ignores  it.  It  is  taken  up  and  developed  by  Paul, 
but  under  influences  so  new  that  when  we  come  to 
its  consideration  we  shall  need  to  raise  the  question 
whether  there  is  in  it  any  element  of  old  Hebrew 
thought. 

The  portions  of  the  conception  which  are  due  to 
the  other  three  elements  vary  much  in  quantity  and 
importance.  Greek  thought  coming  through  the 
medium  of  Alexandrian  Judaism  contributed  very 
slightly  if  at  all.  It  influenced  later  philosophy  in 
the  mechanical  dictation-theory  of  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture,  but  few  distinct  traces  of  this  appear  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  The  teaching 
of  Jesus  emphasizes  certain  elements,  but,  strangely 
enough,  adds  nothing  that  is  essentially  new,  and 
is  far  less  important  for  the  genetic  study  of  the 
doctrine  than  one  would  naturally  expect  in  the 
case  of  an  element  of  Christian  theology  which 
has  held  so  important  a  position  in  the  struc- 
ture of  the  Christian  system.  The  element  of  ex- 
perience was  much  more  significant.  Without 
the  widespread  and  firmly  fixed  belief  in  the  early 
church  that  certain  phenomena  of  their  religious 
life  were  produced  by  the  Spirit  of  God  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Spirit  would  have  taken  an  entirely 

120 


Introduction 

different  form  and  would  have  had  a  very  different 
history.  This  was  the  warp  into  which  the  woof 
of  traditional  concepts,  from  whatever  source  they 
came,  was  woven.  This  experience  is  worthy  of 
the  most  careful  study.  The  neglect  of  this  study 
of  actual  life  has  been  one  reason  for  so  much  in- 
terpretation of  this  doctrine  which  has  been  me- 
chanical and  unpsychological  and  which  has  refused 
to  lend  itself  to  the  demands  of  progressive  theolog- 
ical thought. 

The  term  for  the  Spirit  which  has  become  almost 
the  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  Christian  litera- 
ture, namely,  "Holy  Spirit"  (dyiov  Trveviia),  is  a 
direct  borrowing  from  Judaism.  The  contribution 
of  Christianity  to  the  thought  of  God  is  not  his 
holiness,  but  his  Fatherhood.  The  peculiarly  Chris- 
tion  addition  to  terminology  is  "the  Spirit  of 
Christ."  "Holy"  as  the  qualifying  adjective  of 
"Spirit"  belongs  to  the  cycle  of  Hebrew  thought. 
Its  origin  preceded  the  Christian  period,  and  yet  its 
development  is  not  wholly  easy  to  trace.  The  term 
appears  first  in  the  later  Old  Testament  literature 
(Psa.  51.  11 ;  Isa.  42.  1).  In  the  Jewish  literature 
it  became  more  common. 

Two  reasons  for  the  growth  of  the  term  may  be 
found.  One  is  the  Jewish  hesitancy  to  use  the 
name  of  God.  As  "Heaven"  and  "the  Most  High" 
and  sometimes  "the  Holiness"  came  to  be  used  for 
Elohim  and  Jahveh,  so  "the  Holy  Spirit"  came  to 
be  used  for  the  Spirit  of  Elohim  and  the  Spirit  of 
Jahveh.    The  substitution  was  not  universal  in  the 

121 


The  Spirit  of  God 

one  case  more  than  in  the  other,  but  in  both  it  was 
so  general  as  to  make  a  distinct  usage  which  con- 
forms to  a  well-marked  type.1  That  "Holy" 
was  chosen  as  the  qualifying  adjective  is  in  accord 
with  the  Jewish  exaltation  of  holiness  as  the  chief 
characteristic  of  God.  It  is  a  part  of  the  large  un- 
conscious tribute  of  Judaism  to  the  work  and 
influence  of  the  prophets.  The  second  reason  for 
the  growth  of  the  term  "Holy  Spirit"  is  the  devel- 
opment of  the  idea  of  the  spirits  which  are  not  of 
God.  The  Jewish  mythology  of  angels  and  demons 
had  made  the  old  term  "the  Spirit"  vague  and  am- 
biguous. That  we  find  this  term  used  later  in 
Christian  literature  is  due  to  the  fact  that,  while 
there  was  in  early  Christian  thought  no  decrease 
of  belief  in  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  there  was 
at  the  same  time  a  great  emphasis  on  the  work  of 
the  Spirit  of  God;  so  that  "the  Spirit"  came  to  be 
used  commonly  of  "the  Holy  Spirit"  par  excellence. 
How  different  this  familiar  Christian  usage  is  from 
the  Jewish,  and  how  the  demon  mythology  assisted 
in  the  development  of  the  term  "Holy  Spirit,"  is 
shown  by  Dalman:  "The  Targums  have  conjoined 
0*1  [Spirit],  wherever  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is 
not  expressly  called  the  Spirit  of  God,  either  with 
®iP  [Holy]  or  ^^,  to  make  it  clear  what  spirit 
was   contemplated.    ...      In  Jewish   literature  it 

1  "  RQJ'I'O  fill,  not  NFlbN  fll*),  is  the  common  Jewish  expression;  and 

t    :'••.    -  ttv:     - 

when  Jesus  uses  kv  irvevfian  deov  (Matt.  12.  28),  the  original  would  be  the 
Aramaic  N'tfjip  miS,  unless  the  preference  were  given  to  the  fuller  form 

t     :'••.    -       : 

suggested  by  Matt.  10.  20,  'by  the  Spirit  of  my  Father  in  heaven*  "  (Dal- 
man, Words  of  Jesus,  p.  203). 

122 


Introduction 

is  so  unheard  of  to  speak  of  'the  Spirit/  0^9,  when 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  meant  that  the  single  word 
'Spirit'  would  much  rather  be  taken  to  mean  a 
demon  or  the  wind"  (Words  of  Jesus,  page  203, 
Eng.  tr.).  In  Christian  literature  the  use  or  omis- 
sion of*  the  adjective  "Holy"  is  quite  incidental. 
The  meaning  is  not  thereby  affected. 

123 


CHAPTER  H 

The  Synoptic  Gospels 
I.  The  Teaching  of  Jesus 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  in  the  synoptic 
gospels  between  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  writers  of  the  gospels  or  of  the 
sources  which  they  used.  Even  in  subjects  regard- 
ing which  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  entirely,  or  even 
largely,  original  this  problem  of  distinction  is  not 
always  easy.  In  those  regarding  which  early  Chris- 
tian thought  contained  a  large  infusion  of  inherited 
Jewish  ideas  the  problem  becomes  very  important 
and  sometimes  very  difficult.  Nor  can  this  dis- 
tinction always  be  the  same  as  that  drawn  between 
the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  narration  of  the  evan- 
gelist. It  is  always  possible  that  in  the  transmission 
of  the  words  of  Jesus  some  infusion  of  Christian 
interpretation  or  of  Jewish  inheritance  may  color 
the  impression  which  the  words  leave  upon  the 
reader,  even  if  it  has  not  modified  in  some  measure 
the  record  of  the  words  themselves. 

The  words  of  Jesus  recorded  in  the  synoptists 
give  the  following  uses  of  the  term  "the  Spirit" 
(to  TTvevfjLa),  in  the  sense  of  the  Spirit  of  God: 

Matt.  10.  20:  "It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the 
Spirit  of  your  Father  that  speaketh  in  you"  (par- 
allels, Mark  13.  11;  Luke  12.  12). 

Matt.    12.   31,   32:   "Every  sin   and  blasphemy 
124 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

shall  be  forgiven  unto  men;  but  the  blasphemy 
against  the  Spirit  shall  not  be  forgiven ;  and  whoso- 
ever shall  speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him;  but  whosoever  shall  speak 
against  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him"  (parallels,  Luke  12.  10;  Mark  3.  29). 

Luke  4.  18,  in  the  quotation  from  Isa.  61.  1  de- 
scribing the  "Servant:"  "I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon 
him." 

Matt.  12.  28:  "If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast  out 
demons,  then  is  the  kingdom  of  God  come  upon 
you"  (parallel,  Luke  11.  20,  "by  the  finger  of  God," 
instead  of  "by  the  Spirit  of  God"). 

Luke  11.  13:  "How  much  more  shall  your  heav- 
enly Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask 
him"  (parallel,  Matt.  7.  IX,  "good  things,"  instead 
of  "the  Spirit"). 

Matt.  22.  43 :  "How  then  doth  David  in  the  Spirit 
call  him  Lord,  saying"  (parallel,  Mark  12.  36, 
"David  himself  saith  in  the  Holy  Spirit"). 

Matt.  28.  19,  the  baptismal  formula:  "Into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

Attention  is  immediately  drawn  to  the  two  pas- 
sages where  mention  is  not  made  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  parallels:  Matt.  12.  28  and  Luke  II.  13.  Matt. 
12.  28  ascribes  the  power  to  cast  out  demons  to 
"the  Spirit  of  God;"  Luke  II.  20,  to  "the  finger  of 
God."  There  are  no  other  cases  in  which  Christ 
ascribes  the  miraculous  elements  in  his  ministry  to 
the  Spirit.    The  Spirit  as  the  divine  guiding  power 

125 


The  Spirit  of  God 

in  the  Messianic  career  is,  however,  expressed  in  the 
quotation  from  Isa.  61.  i  (Luke  4.  18).  It  is,  then, 
quite  possible  that  such  an  expression  as  is  used  in 
Matt.  12.  28  may  have  come  from  Christ.  The 
question  comes  to  be  one  of  probabilities  rather  than 
one  in  which  we  can  expect  to  find  absolute  proof. 
On  the  principle  that  the  more  difficult  reading 
is  probably  original  Luke's  phrase,  "the  finger  of 
God,"  would  be  preferred.  It  is  also  true  that  it  is 
easier  to  suppose  the  change  of  this  more  unusual 
phrase  to  the  very  common  Christian  term  "the 
Spirit"  than  to  suppose  the  opposite  change,  particu- 
larly in  Luke,  who  uses  "the  Spirit"  with  such  fre- 
quency. Especially  is  this  change  probable  in  a 
passage  which  a  moment  later  implies  the  Spirit's 
power  in  healing  demoniacs.  At  the  same  time 
there  is  a  certain  liking  for  Old  Testament  phrase- 
ology shown  by  the  Lucan  editor,  and  this  phrase 
has  its  prototype  in  Exod.  8.  19.1  The  question  is, 
then,  one  which  does  not  admit  of  absolute  decision. 
The  probability  remains  against  the  phrase  "the 
Spirit  of  God."  That  Christ  does  not  elsewhere 
lay  stress  upon  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  power 
of  his  miraculous  works  makes  the  probability  yet 
stronger. 

The  second  text  in  which  the  parallel  passage 
does  not  sustain  the  use  of  the  Spirit  is  Luke  11.  13, 
the  promise  that  the  Father  will  "give  the  Holy 

1  Holtzmann  notes  the  Lucan  fondness  "for  certain  plastic  expressions 
like  the  arm  and  hand  of  God  "  (Luke  i.  51,66,71  74).  He  is  still  more 
fond,  however,  of  the  expression  "the  Spirit,"  as  its  frequent  use  in  Acts 
shows.  That  he  has  not  used  it  here  is  a  somewhat  strong  argument  for 
the  originality  of  the  form  he  does  use. 

126 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

Spirit  to  those  that  ask  him."  The  parallel  passage, 
Matt.  7.  11,  promises  instead  the  gift  of  "good 
things."  This  case  seems  to  be  less  doubtful  than 
the  one  just  considered.  It  is  a  promise  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  disciples;  yet  not  to  the  disciples  in 
any  time  of  great  future  need  or  for  the  advance 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  but  at  any  time  and  for 
the  behoof  of  the  personal  relation  between  the  be- 
liever and  God — a  use  not  made  of  the  conception  of 
the  Spirit  elsewhere  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  and 
hardly  in  the  literature  representing  the  primitive 
Christian  idea  of  the  Spirit.  Besides,  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  in  response  to  the  prayers  of  the  disciples  is 
more  akin  to  later  Christian  ideas  than  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ.  In  that  teaching  the  expression  has 
no  parallel.  In  John  14.  16,  which  is  most  nearly 
akin,  the  Spirit  is  promised  in  response  to  the  prayer 
of  Christ.  We  conclude,  then,  that  the  insertion  of 
the  common  Christian  term  of  "the  Spirit"  in  the 
synoptic  source  or  by  the  Lucan  editor,  with  whom 
it  is  a  favorite,  is  more  probable  than  is  the  opposite 
change.1 

Having,  then,  excluded  those  two  passages  on 
the  basis  of  the  parallel  texts,  let  us  gather  up  the 
uses  in  the  remaining  passages : 

1.  The  Spirit  is  used  only  in  respect  to  the  Mes- 
sianic kingdom,  and  in  respect  to  the  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament  writers. 

1  D  and  Codd  it ,  Orig.  read  ayadbv  66[ia,  but  doubtless  influenced  by 
the  text  of  Matthew.  Lucan  forms  of  text  are  also  seen  in  virapxeiv  (Luke 
uses  thirty -three  times)  and  in  the  attraction  of  6  (if  d  is  to  be  read)  in  the 
phrase  6  k%  ovpavov  duoti, 

127 


The  Spirit  of  God 

2.  It  is  used  by  implication  of  the  Messiah's 
activity  in  the  quotation  from  Isa.  61.  i  (Luke  4. 
18),  and,  somewhat  more  directly,  in  Matt.  12.  31, 

32. 

3.  It  is  used  of  the  divine  power  which  will  here- 
after help  the  disciples  in  their  labor  and  in  their 
witness  for  the  Messianic  kingdom  (Mark  13.  11). 

So  far  the  representation  is  entirely  Palestinian 
Jewish.  The  Spirit  is  not  regarded  as  the  origin 
of  the  external  world.  It  is  limited  entirely  to  the 
divine  influence  upon  human  activity.  It  is  a  tem- 
porary gift  for  special  needs,  not  a  permanent  pos- 
session. It  is  not  the  basis  of  a  moral  or  mystical 
"new  life."  All  these  are  marks  of  the  Palestinian- 
Jewish  phase  of  thought.  Christ  neither  introduced 
original  interpretations  into  this  conception  nor  did 
he  go  back  to  those  Old  Testament  elements  which 
had  dropped  out  of  the  Jewish  usage.  His  expres- 
sion was  quite  that  of  contemporaneous  thought. 
It  is  notable,  however,  that  if  we  lay  aside  Matt. 
12.  28,  his  teaching  never  ascribes  the  unusual,  the 
mere  "wonders,"  to  the  Spirit.  Standing  between 
the  Jewish  conception  of  the  wonder-working  Spirit 
and  the  later  emphasis  in  the  church  upon  the  "gifts 
of  the  Spirit,"  the  moderation  of  Christ  in  this  re- 
spect is  notable.1  It  forms  the  link  between  the 
Jewish  conceptions  and  the  later  development  of  an 

1  Wendt  {Gospel  of  John,  p.  8)  calls  attention  to  what  he  regards  a  mark 
of  the  subapostolic  origin  of  the  editor's  framework  of  John  as  distinguished 
from  the  apostolic  "source,"  in  that  the  framework  emphasizes  the  value 
of  Christ's  "signs,"  while  the  source  keeps  to  the  ethical  evidence  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ's  mission.  Whether  Wendt's  analysis  of  the  gospel  be 
correct  or  not  the  dependence  upon  the  ethical  evidence  is  in  greater 
harmony  with  the  synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus  than  is  an  emphasis  upon 
external  signs. 

128 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

ethical  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  under  Paul.  Whether 
or  not  the  teaching  of  Christ  contained  elements 
more  closely  in  harmony  with  the  later  Pauline  doc- 
trine is  a  question  which  arises  more  distinctly  in 
the  consideration  of  that  teaching  as  presented  in 
the  fourth  gospel.  If  there  were  such  teachings,  it 
is  certainly  singular,  but  yet  not  wholly  impossible, 
that  they  should  not  appear  in  the  synoptic  gospels. 

The  obscure  saying  about  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  (Matt.  12.  31,  32;  Luke  12.  10;  Mark 
3.  29)  is  connected  in  both  Matthew  and  Mark  with 
the  charge  that  Jesus  cast  out  demons  "by  Beelze- 
bub, the  prince  of  the  demons."  It  is  seemingly  an 
assertion  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  miracles 
of  Christ.  From  it  one  might  even  gather  a  some- 
what strong  implication  that  the  healing  of  the  de- 
monized  was  the  one  great  proof  that  Christ's  work 
proceeded  from  the  Spirit.  Yet  he  who  could  say 
of  the  exorcism  of  demons,  "If  I  by  Beelzebub  cast 
out  demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out? 
Therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges,"  could  hardly 
have  given  such  a  unique  and  transcendent  impor- 
tance to  this  particular  miraculous  work  as  the  lim- 
itation of  this  saying  to  that  work  alone  would  im- 
ply. Nor  do  we  find  that  elsewhere  Christ  places 
his  miraculous  works  upon  so  high  a  plane.  It  is 
likely,  then,  that  Christ  in  this  saying  had  in  mind 
not  merely  the  phenomenon  which  formed  the  occa- 
sion of  the  saying,  but  that  he  included  in  his  mean- 
ing rather  the  sum  total  of  the  evidence  for  his 
Messianic  mission. 

(9)  129 


The  Spirit  of  God 

The  saying  is  of  further  significance  as  marking 
Christ's  conception  of  the  transcendent  importance 
of  the  Spirit's  work.  That  conception  finds  its  best 
explanation  in  the  idea  that  Christ  here  speaks  in 
the  language  of  Palestinian- Jewish  notions  of  the 
Spirit.  For  long  generations  the  Spirit  had  been 
withdrawn  from  the  world.  From  the  close  of  pro- 
phetic times  it  had  been  reserved  for  the  Messianic 
period.  When  it  was  now  once  more  operative  in 
Israel,  when  it  was  present  in  the  fulfillment  of  the 
long-desired  Messianic  hope,  for  Jewish  leaders  to 
deny  its  manifestations  was  a  sin  of  peculiar  hei- 
nousness.  The  saying  gets  its  sting  not  from  its 
comparison  of  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit  and 
against  Jesus,  but  from  the  Judaistic  background  of 
the  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  the  national  Mes- 
sianic hope. 

For  Christ's  conception  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
the  most  central  synoptic  teaching  is  Mark  13.  11; 
Luke  12.  12;  Matt.  10.  20.1 

The  Spirit  here  is  the  Old  Testament  Spirit  of 
inspiration.  Compare,  for  example,  the  idea  in  the 
Balaam  fragment,  where  Balaam  waits  upon  the 
word  of  Jahveh  (Num.  2.2.  8;  23.  3;  and  especially 
24.  13).  True,  it  is  here  promised  by  Jesus  not  for 
prophecy,  but  for  testimony;  but  Christian  testi- 
mony is  the  correlative  of  the  Old  Testament  proph- 

1  Gilbert  {The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  p.  297)  supposes  the  teaching  to  have 
been  given  on  two  occasions,  but  Matt.  10.  17-22  and  Luke  12.  12  seem  to 
be  parallel  with  Mark  13.  9-13  and  to  be  a  doublet  of  Matt.  24.  9-14  (see 
Holtzmann  in  loco).  Only  the  occasion  suggested  in  the  latter  passage 
furnishes  a  proper  historical  basis  for  the  teaching  in  general.  The  promise 
of  the  Spirit  also  points  to  a  time  when  the  Messianic  nature  of  Christ's 
mission  was  well  understood  by  the  apostles. 

130 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

ecy.  The  apocalyptic  writer  was  but  following  the 
lead  of  this  teaching  of  Christ  when  he  wrote,  "The 
testimony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy"  (Rev. 
19.  10). 

The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  connected  with  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  not  with  the 
safety  of  the  individual  disciple.  The  purpose  of 
the  speaking  is  "for  a  testimony  to"  those  before 
whom  the  disciples  will  be  brought.  (Luke's 
thought  in  21.  13  is,  as  Wendt  suggests,1  a  change 
not  in  strict  accord  with  the  teaching  of  Christ ;  see 
also  Holtzmann  in  loco.)  But  the  testimony  of  the 
disciples  in  the  New  Testament  has  for  its  purpose 
the  advance  of  the  Messianic  knowledge  and  belief 
(1  Cor.  1.  6;  2.  1).  Mark  13.  12  shows  that  the 
result  of  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  is  not  personal 
safety. 

The  guidance  of  the  Spirit  is  for  special  needs. 
The  promise  is  not  for  general  assistance,  nor  for 
a  continual  control,  but  only  for  guidance  on  partic- 
ular occasions.    It  is  the  particular  charismatic  use. 

The  promise  of  the  Spirit  is  a  promise  of  divine 
help  when  human  resources  fail.  The  simple  dis- 
ciples might  well  be  alarmed  at  the  prospect  of 
facing  the  religious  and  civil  power  of  their  own 
nation  and  of  the  Roman  empire;  for  thus  they 
must  have  understood  Jesus's  words.  His  promise 
was  obviously  that  of  help  where  their  own  re- 
sources of  wisdom  and  eloquence  were  too  feeble 
to  avail. 

1  Teaching  of  Jesus,  Eng.  tr.,  I,  p.  238,  note. 
131 


The  Spirit  of  God 

The  promise  was  not  of  the  Spirit  as  ground- 
ing the  ethical  life,  but  of  the  Spirit  as  inspiring 
for  utterance  which  will  further  the  purposes  of 
God,  as  in  the  Old  Testament  prophecy.  In  fact, 
the  closest  affinities  of  this  thought  are  with  the 
ideas  of  Old  Testament  prophetic  inspiration. 

The  intimate  association  of  the  Spirit  with  the 
activity  of  the  disciples  is  marked  by  as  strong  an 
emphasis  as  the  most  anthropomorphic  Old  Testa- 
ment writer  could  use.  "It  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but 
the  Holy  Spirit."  It  is  a  most  absolute  expression 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  individual  as  the  instrument 
of  the  Spirit.  In  Luke  21.  15  the  same  guidance 
is  assigned  not  to  the  Spirit,  but  to  Christ  himself. 
This  unification  of  the  two  is  quite  in  line  with  the 
early  Christian  thought  which  spoke  of  the  Spirit 
as  "the  Spirit  of  Christ."  This  passage  may  be 
summarized  as  follows:  The  Spirit  so  inspires  the 
disciple  of  Christ  that  his  natural  powers  are  sup- 
plemented whenever  the  needs  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  demand  it.  This  is,  then,  the  conception 
of  a  supernatural  inspiration,  akin  in  psychological 
character  to  the  Old  Testament  prophetic  inspira- 
tion, a  temporary  gift  for  special  occasions. 

In  Luke  4.  18  Jesus  applies  to  his  mission  the  de- 
scription of  the  Servant  in  Second  Isaiah  (61.  1). 
He  uses  it  as  a  Messianic  passage,  in  which  the 
entire  Messianic  mission  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit. 
This  was  one  of  those  indirect  and  tentative  claims 
to  the  Messiahship  which  were  frequent  in  the  early 
middle  period  of  Jesus's  ministry.     It  is  possible 

132 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

that  some  inkling  of  his  high  claim  penetrated  the 
minds  of  the  men  of  Nazareth  on  that  occasion, 
for  Jesus's  refusal  to  repeat  "the  things  done  in 
Capernaum"  here  in  "his  own  country"  could  not 
have  been  thrown  cavalierly  upon  a  friendly  audi- 
ence. It  is  not  improbable  that  the  outbreak  of 
wrath  which  followed  his  address  may  have  pro- 
ceeded in  part  from  his  claim  of  the  Spirit's  guid- 
ance, which  could  have  meant  to  a  Palestinian  audi- 
ence nothing  but  an  assumption  of  the  Messianic 
mission.  Even  John,  the  prophet  of  the  wilderness, 
had  been  careful  not  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  pos- 
session of  the  Spirit.  Who  was  this  fellow,  that  he 
should  claim  that  which  only  belonged  to  the  Mes- 
siah or  to  the  Messianic  era?  The  Messiah  was 
not  yet  come.  Did  he  himself  claim  to  be  that  per- 
son?   "And  they  were  filled  with  wrath." 

There  remains  the  formula  of  baptism  in  Matt. 
28.  19:  "Into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Does  this  proceed 
from  Jesus?1  The  fact  that  the  full  formula  is  not 
elsewhere  given  in  the  New  Testament  creates  a 
probability  against  it,  but  by  no  means  makes,  as 
is  often  assumed,  a  conclusive  objection  to  it.  Else- 
where in  the  New  Testament  we  have  no  occasion 
for  a  full  formula.  The  incidental  references  to 
baptism  do  not  demand  the  formula.     At  the  same 

1  The  investigations  of  Conybeare,  published  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  die 
N.  T.  Wtssenschaft  and  in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  Vol.  I,  and  summarized  by 
Professor  Lake  in  his  inaugural  lecture  at  the  University  of  Leyden,  Jan- 
uary 27,  1904,  throw  grave  critical  doubt  upon  the  trinitarian  formula  as 
a  part  of  the  original  text.  There  seems  reason  to  believe  that  the  early 
church  fathers  knew  the  text  without  the  formula.  Should  the  position  be 
proved,  the  problem  of  the  use  of  the  Spirit  in  this  text  disappears  for 
biblical  theology. 

133 


The  Spirit  of  God 

time  the  slight  reference  to  baptism  in  the  activity 
of  Christ  (baptism  seems  to  disappear  totally  from 
Christ's  work  after  the  beginning  of  the  Judean 
ministry),  the  fact  that  Christ  so  rilled  the  content 
of  the  religion  of  the  early  church,  coupled  with 
the  use  of  Christ's  name  only  in  all  references  to 
baptism,  make  it  probable  that  the  trinitarian  for- 
mula does  not  come  from  Christ. 

The  study  of  the  use  of  the  Spirit  furnishes  a 
more  sure  ground  of  conclusion  on  this  subject  than 
does  historical  criticism.  What  could  baptism  "into 
the  name  of  the  Spirit"  have  meant  in  the  mouth  of 
Jesus,  judging  by  his  use  of  the  same  term  elsewhere 
in  the  synoptists?  What  but  baptism  into  the  oc- 
casional possession  of  a  divine  power  in  times  of 
great  need,  when  ordinary  human  abilities  did  not 
suffice  to  advance  the  Messianic  purposes  of  God? 
One  may  well  question  whether  Christ  would  have 
put  a  term  with  this  meaning  by  the  side  of  God 
and  the  Messiah  in  a  solemn  formula  of  baptism. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  could  suppose  it  to  have 
been  in  some  sort  a  synonym  for  the  power  or 
"name"  of  God — a  meaning  sanctioned  by  neither 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  nor  the  remains  of  contempo- 
rary Jewish  literature — it  would  still  be  difficult  to 
account  for  the  use  of  synonyms  in  this  way.  We 
can  explain  this  formula  neither  from  the  use  of 
the  term  "the  Spirit"  in  the  words  of  Jesus  nor 
from  its  use  in  Palestinian- Jewish  writings.  It  is, 
however,  not  difficult  to  explain  it  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  early  church.     No  sooner  did  Chris- 

134 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

tianity  pass  from  the  Jewish  into  the  Gentile  world 
than  the  belief  in  God  "the  Father"  became  an  article 
of  Christian  faith  in  a  much  more  important  sense 
than  among  monotheistic  Jehovah-worshiping  Jews. 
The  Spirit,  too,  as  the  basis  of  the  new  life,  as  both 
the  essence  and  the  evidence  of  the  connection  of  the 
Christian  with  the  supreme  God,  as  the  divine  guiding 
power  of  the  Christian  community  in  all  its  ecclesi- 
astical organism  and  its  missionary  activity,  came  to 
be  an  essential  element  of  Christian  belief.  It  meant 
a  rich  heritage,  a  precious  experience,  a  high  voca- 
tion. It  meant  a  form  of  divinity,  not  less  divine 
than  God  the  Father  or  than  Christ.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  the  church  embodied  its  conscious- 
ness of  the  value  of  this  relationship  to  the  divine 
in  the  formula  of  baptism.  To  find  its  value,  how- 
ever, we  need  to  go  not  to  the  teaching  of  Christ, 
but  to  the  thought  and  life  of  the  early  church.  For 
these  reasons,  as  well  as  for  those  which  historical 
criticism  more  often  presents,  one  is  compelled  to 
withdraw  the  formula  in  Matt.  28.  19  from  the 
genuine  words  of  Jesus. 

There  remain,  then,  as  probably  genuine  words 
of  Jesus  regarding  the  Spirit:  1.  Mark  12.  36  (par- 
allel, Matt.  22.  43),  a  reference  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  as  speaking  "in  the  Spirit."  2.  Matt. 
12.  31,  32  (parallels,  Luke  12.  11 ;  Mark  3.  29),  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  3.  Luke  4.  18,  the  Mes- 
sianic Spirit,  quoted  from  Isa.  61.  1,  connecting 
the  Spirit  with  the  mission  of  the  Messiah.  4. 
Matt.  10.  20  (parallels,  Mark  13.  11 ;  Luke  12.  12), 

135 


The  Spirit  of  God 

the  promise  of  the  aid  of  the  Spirit  to  the  disciples 
in  future  times  of  need. 

Summarizing  the  teaching  of  Christ  in  the  synop- 
tists:  The  Spirit  is  a  manifest  revelation  of  God, 
present  in  the  work  of  the  Messiah  and  guiding  his 
action.  It  will  also  furnish  needed  divine  power  to 
the  members  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  when  Christ 
is  absent  and  their  own  powers  no  longer  suffice. 
It  is  not  a  new  life  or  the  basis  of  a  new  life,  but 
a  special  gift,  superadded  to  the  ordinary  life. 

This  is  thoroughly  Palestinian  Jewish.  There  is 
here  no  hint  of  the  peculiar  Pauline  development. 
The  whole  conception  is  in  line  with  that  of  the  early 
Jewish  apostolic  church.  There  is  elsewhere  in 
the  synoptic  teaching  of  Jesus  the  equivalent  of 
Paul's  idea  of  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit.  It  is 
expressed  as  coming  into  the  kingdom;  as  a  life 
with  new  aims  and  purposes;  as  the  life  of  faith, 
its  ethical  aim,  righteousness,  its  inspiration,  trust; 
as  the  gift  of  God,  its  connection  being  with  God 
directly,  not  with  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  small  part  which  the  Spirit  plays  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  needs  explanation.  It  certainly  can- 
not be  taken  as  indicating  that  Christ  placed  little 
value  on  the  idea  which  that  term  represented.  The 
intimate  relation  between  God  and  man  which  this 
term  had  indicated  in  the  Hebrew  literature  was 
exactly  that  which  Jesus  was  most  concerned  to 
bring  about.  It  may  very  possibly  be  his  clear  reali- 
zation of  this  relation  that  led  to  the  rare  use  of 
the  term  "Spirit  of  God"  to  express  it.     Christ 

136 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

taught  a  perfect  harmony  with  God.  He  himself 
stood  in  such  a  relation.  He  desired  it  for  his  fol- 
lowers. He  would  have  his  disciples  brought  into 
direct  and  immediate  connection  with  God  himself. 
Even  so  thin  a  veil  as  the  idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
might  tend  to  obscure  the  relation.  Of  the  classes 
of  instances  which  can  be  traced  undeniably  to  his 
use  one  is  of  the  past,  when  the  Spirit  spoke  through 
Hebrew  inspiration  (Mark  12.  36),  one  is  of  the 
future,  after  his  departure  (Mark  13.  11),  and  the 
third  is  such  a  statement  as  could  by  no  possibility 
obscure  the  fact  of  an  immediate  relation  between 
God  and  men  (Matt.  12.  31,  f. ;  Luke  4.  18  and 
parallels). 

It  is  significant  that  in  no  case  does  Christ  speak 
of  the  Spirit  as  acting  upon  his  followers  while 
he  is  present  with  them.  He  would  keep  the  thought 
of  the  disciples  fixed  upon  himself  as  the  revelation 
of  the  Father.  It  is  only  when  his  thoughts  recur 
to  the  gloomy  future  that  he  appeals,  in  either  the 
Johannean  or  the  synoptic  tradition,  to  the  Jewish 
thought  of  the  Spirit  as  an  element  of  comfort  to 
the  "orphaned''  disciples.  Even  this  use  of  it  is 
in  the  nature  of  a  concession  to  Jewish  usage. 
Really  his  disciples  had  what  was  better  than  the 
Spirit ;  they  had  Christ  himself.  Even  after  his  de- 
parture the  presence  of  the  Spirit  would  still  be  his 
own  presence,  so  that  he  could  say,  if  we  may  trust 
the  Johannean  tradition,  "I  will  not  leave  you  or- 
phaned. I  will  come  unto  you."  It  is  in  line  with 
this  that  Luke  substitutes,  for  the  promise  of  the 

137 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Holy  Spirit  to  the  disciples  when  brought  before 
kings  and  rulers  on  account  of  the  gospel,  the 
words,  "I  will  give  you  a  mouth  and  wisdom  which 
none  of  your  adversaries  shall  be  able  to  withstand." 
Certainly  Christ's  teaching  resulted  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  presence  not  only  of  the  Spirit, 
but  of  Christ  himself,  active  and  energizing  in  the 
Christian  church.  One  queries  if  this  may  not  be 
due,  at  least  in  part,  to  Christ's  sparing  use  of  the 
Spirit  and  his  great  emphasis  on  the  direct  and 
immediate  relation  of  the  believer  to  himself  and 
to  the  Father. 

II.  The  Synoptic  Narrative 
There  is  one  section  of  the  gospel  narrative  which 
represents  entirely  Jewish  thought,  except  as  it  may 
have  been  colored  by  the  Christian  medium  through 
which  it  has  passed.  This  is  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist.  The  Jewish  element  is  seen  in  all  the 
concepts  of  John's  teaching.  The  Messiah  as  the 
purifier  of  his  people  (Mark  i.  8) ;  the  need  of  re- 
pentance as  the  preparation  for  his  coming  (Matt. 
3.  8)  ;  the  Messiah  as  being  present,  but  hidden  in 
obscurity  until  the  time  of  his  manifestation  (John 
1.  26)  are  all  common  Jewish  ideas.  The  one  ref- 
erence to  the  Spirit  which  the  tradition  of  John's 
preaching  has  preserved  in  the  gospels  is  also  wholly 
Jewish :  "I  baptize  you  with  water :  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire"  (Matt. 
3.  11 ;  Mark  1.  8;  Luke  3.  16;  comp.  Acts  1.  5). 
It  is  worthy  of  note  also  that  the  idea  of  the  Spirit 
138 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

is  Jewish  rather  than  Hebrew,  even  though  one 
finds  in  other  elements  of  John's  teaching  a  revival 
of  Hebrew  concepts.  For  example,  his  sense  of  his 
own  prophetic  mission  is  Hebrew,  not  Jewish. 
Judaism,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  thus  interpret 
its  religious  experiences.  John  feels  that  he  is  "a 
voice"  through  whom  God  speaks.  He  is  now 
ready  to  say,  "I  say  unto  you"  (Luke  3.  8),  quite 
in  the  manner  of  the  ancient  prophet.  One  can 
only  think  of  him  as  recognizing  within  himself 
that  divine  guidance  which  made  the  prophetic  con- 
sciousness. Yet  with  all  his  claims  for  himself  he 
did  not  claim  to  possess  the  Spirit.  That  he  keeps, 
with  characteristic  Jewish  reverence  for  the  idea, 
exclusively  for  the  operation  of  God  in  the  fully 
developed  Messianic  kingdom.  So  thoroughly  was 
he  imbued  with  the  Jewish  idea  of  the  Spirit  as 
being  the  peculiar  property  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom in  the  future  that  the  old  prophetic  language 
which  called  the  prophet  the  man  upon  whom  the 
Spirit  of  God  had  come  was  no  longer  the  natural 
language  to  use.  He  is  a  prophet,  but  the  Messiah 
will  have  the  Spirit. 

While  this  conception  of  the  Spirit  is  Jewish,  still 
its  interpretation  is  based  on  Hebrew  prophecy. 
The  Messiah  is  regarded  as  mediating  the  Spirit  to 
his  followers.  "I  baptize  you  with  water:  but  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with 
fire."  The  figure  of  baptism  in  the  Spirit  (kv 
TrvevfiaTi)  is  not  to  be  carried  too  far,  as  though 
the  Spirit  were  an  element  by  means  of  which  the 

139 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Messiah  would  accomplish  his  purpose,  as  water 
is  the  element  of  baptism.  The  use  of  fire  in  the 
same  phrase  shows  that  the  whole  double  figure 
must  be  taken  in  the  broad  sense  of  its  inner  fig- 
urative meaning.  It  is  as  though  John  said,  "I 
am  placing  you  in  relation  to  God  by  a  symbol 
which  expresses  your  desire  for  purification  from 
sin.  The  Messiah  will  place  you  in  a  relation  to 
God  which  shall  exceed  what  I  can  offer  as  much 
as  purification  by  fire  exceeds  washing  by  water." 
Not  only  will  it  be  different  in  power,  but  in  con- 
tent. "Your  baptism  expresses  your  own  purpose. 
The  Messiah  will  offer  you  a  baptism  in  which 
God's  power  shall  meet  with  your  purpose.  The 
purification  shall  be  God's  work,  not  yours  only." 

Nor  was  the  idea  of  purification  the  only,  or  per- 
haps the  most  important,  idea  of  the  Baptist  in  his 
use  of  the  Spirit.  The  promise  of  the  Spirit  con- 
stituted a  claim  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  old  pro- 
phetic promise  of  the  return  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
people.  It  was  the  affirmation  in  another  form  that 
the  Messianic  age  was  at  hand. 

Closely  akin  to  this  Messianic  teaching  is  the 
incident  of  the  vision  at  Jesus's  baptism.  Mark,  our 
first  source  for  this  tradition,  makes  this  a  vision 
of  Jesus  (i.  9,  10),  without,  however,  implying 
that  John  did  not  also  see  it.  Matthew  follows 
Mark  in  part.  In  Luke  the  rhetorical  figure  of  the 
Spirit  descending  "like  a  dove"  is  transformed  into 
literal  fact,  "in  bodily  form  as  a  dove."  John  i.  33, 
"I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  as   a   dove  out  of 

140 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

heaven/'  contains  a  reminiscence  of  the  same  figure. 
One  would  not  press  the  phrase  "as  a  dove"  here 
or  elsewhere  as  necessarily  from  the  Baptist;  but 
it  seems  not  impossible  that  the  vision  may  have 
been  to  the  Baptist,1  and  that  the  fourth  gospel 
may  have  at  the  basis  of  its  account  the  most  cor- 
rect form  of  tradition  when  it  puts  the  story  of 
the  vision  of  the  Spirit  in  the  mouth  of  the  Baptist. 
It  would,  at  least,  be  in  perfect  accord  with  his  Jew- 
ish conception  of  the  Spirit  as  a  peculiar  possession 
of  the  Messiah. 

When  we  pass  in  the  earliest  gospel  source  from 
the  tradition  of  the  Baptist  to  the  narratives  of  the 
ministry  of  Christ  we  are  struck  by  the  meagerness 
of  reference  to  the  Spirit.  We  might  expect  that 
in  the  light  both  of  the  Jewish  Messianic  idea  and 
of  the  later  Christian  experience  there  would  be  an 
abundant  use  of  the  Spirit  to  explain  the  life  and 
works  of  Christ.2  On  the  contrary,  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  oldest  tradition  present  only  one 
passage,  aside  from  the  story  of  the  baptism  men- 
tioned above,  in  which  this  explanation  is  offered 
for  an  event  in  Christ's  life.  That  is  the  tempta- 
tion (Mark  i.  12),  an  event  not  a  part  of  the 
expected  Messianic  activity.     So  far,  then,  as  our 

1  There  is  little  use  in  trying  to  rationalize  this  account  or  to  discuss 
various  vision  hypotheses  in  connection  with  it.  He  who  recognizes  how 
easily  the  periods  of  religious  enthusiasm  evolve  psychological  experiences 
which  take  the  form  of  visions,  and  also  how  easily  events  become  thrown 
into  vision  form  in  the  telling,  will  be  but  little  inclined  to  dogmatize  about 
this  dove.  The  important  thing  is  the  conception  of  the  Spirit.  The  figure 
of  the  dove  may  have  come  into  the  narrative  in  any  one  of  several  ways. 

8  The  few  references  in  Acts  must  be  from  a  later  date.  They  occur  in 
later  documents,  which  use  the  Spirit  very  freely  as  an  explanation  of  all 
Christian  phenomena.  The  same  would,  of  course,  apply  to  the  Johannean 
literature  (for  example,  John  3.  34). 

141 


The  Spirit  of  God 

literature  allows  us  to  judge,  the  earliest  Christian 
thought  did  not  explain  the  Messianic  work  as  being 
due  to  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  by  Christ.  This 
paucity  of  use  may  be  due  to  two  influences:  the 
very  meager  use  which  Christ  himself  made  of  the 
conception  in  explaining  his  work,  and  the  feeling 
that  Christ  stood  so  close  to  God  that  there  was  no 
need  for  the  intervention  of  the  Spirit.  This  would 
have  been  quite  in  accord  with .  the  Jewish  notion 
of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  was  God's  medium  for 
the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  and  other  men 
through  whom  he  wrought  his  will  upon  earth.  So 
long  as  the  Messiah  had  been  thought  of,  as  he  was 
by  Hebrew  prophet  and  Judaistic  scribe,  as  a 
prince-prophet,  a  man  whose  official  position  deter- 
mined the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  God,  so 
long  he  had,  like  other  prophets  and  national  lead- 
ers, been  regarded  as  holding  this  official  position 
by  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  abundant  evi- 
dence, however,  that  with  the  disciples,  who  had 
known  Jesus,  the  personal  element  dominated  the 
official.  He  was  the  Messiah  to  them,  having  all 
the  Messianic  offices;  but  as  he  had  seldom  if  ever 
spoken  to  them  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  his 
revelation  of  God,  but  rather  of  his  relation  as  being 
immediately  with  the  Father  himself,  so  the  dis- 
ciples found  no  need  of  supplying,  in  their  thought 
of  him,  a  medium  of  connection  with  God  through 
the  Spirit.  Another  element  seems  to  have  assisted 
in  this  change  from  Jewish  ideas:  that  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  himself  took  up  the  Jewish  conception 

142 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

of  the  Spirit  in  the  Messianic  time,  but  applied  it 
especially  to  the  time  following  the  earthly  presence 
of  the  Messiah.  In  that  time  the  disciples  would 
need  the  Spirit  to  assist  them  in  the  midst  of  ene- 
mies (Mark  13.  11).  Here  also  belongs,  as  will  be 
shown  more  fully  later,  the  conception  of  the  Spirit 
which  is  found  in  the  last  discourses  of  John,  the 
account  of  Jesus's  breathing  upon  his  disciples,  and 
saying,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit"  (John  20. 
22)  ;  and  the  instructions  to  the  disciples  given  at 
the  ascension,  as  told  in  Acts  1 ;  all  of  which  are 
in  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  Christ  about  the 
Spirit,  and  doubtless  rest  upon  genuine  tradition. 

The  reference  to  the  Spirit  as  driving  Christ  into 
the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  seems  to  have  been 
made  under  the  impulse  of  the  desire  to  account  for 
such  an  unexpected  circumstance  as  a  temptation  of 
the  Messiah.  Even  this  temptation,  the  author  of 
the  narrative  wishes  to  affirm,  was  not  apart  from 
the  divine  plan  of  his  work.1 

The  Matthean  account  of  the  nativity  unites  with 
the  Lucan  account  in  ascribing  the  divine  agency 
in  the  birth  of  Christ  to  the  action  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Matt.  1.  18,  20;  comp.  Luke  1.  35).  The 
whole  critical  question  of  the  stories  of  the  nativity 

1  Since  the  account  of  the  temptation  must,  if  it  has  any  historical  basis 
at  all,  have  come  in  some  form  from  Christ  himself,  there  is  a  possibility 
that  this  reference  to  the  Spirit  is  also  to  be  ascribed  to  him.  All  the  prob- 
abilities, however,  are  otherwise.  The  paucity  of  the  references  of  his 
own  activity  to  the  Spirit  unites  with  the  great  improbability  that  he 
would  assign  this  event  to  the  Spirit,  when  he  does  not  so  assign  his  great 
works  of  grace  and  teachings  of  mercy.  On  the  other  hand,  nothing  would 
be  more  probable  than  that  early  Christian  tradition  should  attribute  this 
event,  so  strange,  so  unexpected  in  the  career  of  the  Messiah,  to  the  direct 
action  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  under  the  feeling  that  it  stood  in  peculiar  need 
of  an  element  of  defense. 

143 


The  Spirit  of  God 

is  involved  in  any  discussion  of  this  matter.  With- 
out entering  here  into  an  extended  treatment  of  the 
subject  one  may  assume  that  they  do  not  represent 
in  their  present  form  the  earliest  period  of  the  apos- 
tolic church.  They  are  attempts  to  account  for 
the  unique  personality  of  Christ.  They  must  have 
taken  literary  form  after  the  personality  of  Christ 
had  become  in  some  measure  a  problem  for  the 
church.  The  idea  often  advanced,  that  these  narra- 
tives in  their  present  form  belong  to  the  earliest 
stage  of  Christian  tradition,1  seems  hardly  borne 
out  by  a  close  study.  It  is  true  that  the  Messianic 
mission  of  Jesus  appears  prominently  in  both  narra- 
tives. This  would,  however,  hardly  need  a  birth  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  Nothing  in  Jewish  thought 
would  demand  that.  Nowhere  in  Judaism  is  the 
Messiah  a  person  of  supernatural  birth,  though 
sometimes  he  is  regarded  as  a  supernatural  person, 
come  down  from  heaven.  The  Spirit,  however,  is 
nowhere  connected  with  his  personal  appearance. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  vivid  realization  of  the  won- 
derful character  of  Jesus  demanded  an  explanation 
of  his  person.  It  is  this  explanation  rather  than  the 
recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  which  would 
give  occasion  for  the  publication  of  the  narrative 
of  the  miraculous  birth.2 

1  For  example,  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  article  "Holy  Spirit,"  p.  405. 

3  Dr.  Hoben  ("The  Virgin  Birth,"  in  The  American  Journal  of  Theology, 
July,  1902)  suggests  three  possible  conceptions  as  finding  explanation  in 
the  miraculous  birth:  the  moral  purity  of  Christ,  his  Messianic  mission, 
and  his  moral  likeness  to  God.  He  excludes  the  explanation  of  the  divine 
nature  of  Christ  from  the  purpose  of  the  gospel  writer.  What  is  said  above 
would  serve  to  exclude  the  Messianic  mission  also  from  the  lists,  and  would 
leave  the  explanation  of  the  unique  personal  elements  of  Christ's  char- 
acter, his  moral  purity  and  moral  likeness  to  God,  as  the  reason  for  the 
narrative  of  the  story  of  the  miraculous  birth. 

144 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

The  conception  of  the  Spirit  presented  in  the  gos- 
pel of  the  infancy  is  unique,  different  from  any  that 
preceded  it.  In  the  broad  sense  it  is  charismatic 
and  connected  with  the  element  of  character.  At 
the  same  time  the  Spirit  seems  to  be  regarded  as 
the  origin  of  the  physical  body  of  Christ,  and  so 
it  connects  with  the  middle  Hebrew  idea  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  active  in  the  physical  world.  There, 
however,  it  was  God  moving  upon  the  physical 
world  directly  and  for  the  sake  of  an  end  within  that 
world.  Here  it  is  for  the  sake  of  the  religious 
rather  than  of  the  physical,1  an  idea  more  in  the 
line  of  later  Judaic  thought.  One  may  perhaps  call 
this  the  earliest  attempt  to  explain  the  person  of 
Christ.  The  explanation  is  in  accord  with  the  Juda- 
istic  Christian  ideas  of  the  Spirit. 

Nor,  despite  the  unique  character  of  the  concep- 
tion, is  it  difficult  to  see  why  the  Spirit  is  used  as 
the  active  agency  of  God  in  the  birth  of  Christ.  It 
lay  so  closely  related  in  Jewish  thought  to  the  Mes- 
sianic office  that  it  offered  an  easy  and  natural  term 
to  use  for  the  explanation  of  his  person.     In  this 

1  There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  creation  of  Christ's  physical 
body  is  included  in  the  action  of  the  Spirit.  Walker  (The  Spirit  and  the 
Incarnation,  p.  302)  says  of  the  ordinary  understanding  of  the  passage  that 
it  seems  "an  irruption  of  the  spiritual  and  the  divine  into  the  physical  and 
natural  sphere  so  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  idea  of  evolution  as  an 
orderly  process  by  means  of  resident  forces  as  to  be  incredible."  Perhaps 
that  is  true,  but  the  story  seems,  nevertheless,  to  mean  just  that.  #  Walker 
calls  it  "a  narrative  in  the  naive  biblical  style,"  expressing  _  'in  semi- 
poetical  form  the  great  fact  that  underlay  the  second  creation  in  Christ." 
He  would  find  its  significance  in  the  entrance  into  the  world  "of  a  dis- 
tinctly new  and  higher  kind  of  being — man  wholly  after  the  Spirit,  man  as 
the  Son  of  God,  nay,  the  Divine  Life  realizing  itself  as  man."  To  make 
this  a  naive  poetical  account  of  so  profound  a  truth  is  to  deal  with  the  New 
Testament  in  a  way  out  of  all  accord  with  the  type  of  literature  it  repre- 
sents. It  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  the  early  church  either  had  such  an 
elaborate  theory  of  the  person  of  Christ  or  that,  if  they  had,  they  would 
have  taken  this  enigmatic  way  to  express  it.  It  looks  too  much  like  Philon- 
izing  rationalism. 

(IO)  145 


The  Spirit  of  God 

way,  too,  the  Christian  church  avoided  the  offensive 
physical  conceptions  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God 
which  would  otherwise  have  lain  so  near  the  sur- 
face and  which  Professor  Curtiss1  shows  to  be  within 
the  actual  range  of  the  Syrian  peoples.  Without 
the  idea  of  the  Spirit  the  thought  of  the  divine  Son- 
ship  of  Christ,  had  it  ever  been  carried  into  the 
physical  realm  at  all,  would  almost  certainly  have 
become  a  conception  of  mythical  nature  not  essen- 
tially unlike  Greek  and  Hindu  myths  of  divine-hu- 
man beings. 

Even  as  it  is,  the  enemies  of  Christianity  actually 
charged  this  mythical  belief  against  the  church.  It 
was  possible  to  avoid  this  physical  mythology,  and 
yet  to  express  the  profound  truth  of  Christ's  unique 
personal  relation  to  God,  by  the  use  of  that  concep- 
tion of  the  Spirit  which  the  Hebrew  religion  had 
developed.  Without  the  use  of  this  inherited  term 
and  the  idea  which  it  represented  the  Christian 
conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  would  have  been 
either  much  lower  or  vastly  poorer  and  more  bar- 
ren than  it  has  been.  With  it  the  early  church 
could  think  of  its  Messiah  as  coming  body  and  soul 
from  God,  yet  perfectly  human,  and  could  so  con- 
ceive his  nature  as  neither  to  lower  his  character  nor 
make  an  idea  impossible  to  picture  from  their  Jew- 
ish point  of  view.  It  was  only  when  Greek  meta- 
physical notions  entered  Christian  thought,  and  the 
simple  Hebrew  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  the  divine 
power  dropped  away  before  a  metaphysical  ideal- 

1  Primitive  Semitic  Religion  To -day. 
I46 


f  UNIVI 
The  Synoptic  Gospels  >£jju» 

ism,  that  the  person  of  Christ  became  a  mystery. 
To  the  theologians  who  discussed  the  person  of 
Christ  in  the  terms  of  homoousios  and  homoiousios 
the  Spirit  of  God  was  a  term  of  hidden  meaning. 
The  explanation  which  had  met  the  first  needs  of 
the  Jewish  Christian  church  played  absolutely  no 
part  in  the  great  classic  theological  debates  regard- 
ing the  divinity  of  Christ.  Doubtless  the  scholar- 
ship of  the  world  can  never  retreat  from  complex 
and  philosophical  to  naive  answers  to  its  riddles, 
but  meantime  the  great  mass  of  the  church  will 
continue  to  find  if  not  a  complete,  yet  a  satisfactory, 
provisional  answer  to  its  questions  of  the  person  of 
Christ  in  the  earliest  Jewish  Christian  explanation, 
"conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  even  if  it  is  not  able 
to  comprehend  speculations  of  scholastic  theology. 
As  one  follows  the  attempts  of  other  religions  to 
express  kindred  ideas  of  their  leaders  and  divine 
heroes  one  is  thankful  that  the  providence  of  God 
furnished  the  Christian  church  with  this  old  He- 
brew term  for  the  divine  activity  operating  in  the 
world. 

In  spite  of  their  great  differences  there  seems  to 
be  some  relation  between  the  Matthean  and  Lucan 
accounts  of  the  infancy.  The  resemblances  are  too 
great  to  permit  the  view  that  the  accounts  have  an 
entirely  disconnected  origin.  Whether  that  connec- 
tion be  in  a  form  of  an  original  Jerusalem-Bethle- 
hem saga,  as  Wernle1  suggests,  or  in  some  other 
way,  is  a  problem  which  would  lead  us  far  afield. 

1  Dit  Synoptische  Frage,  1899. 

147 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Certainly  the  original  form  contained  the  reference 
to  the  Spirit  which  is  common  to  the  two  accounts 
(Matt.  i.  1 8,  20;  Luke  1.  35).  The  Lucan  ac- 
count has  been  largely  expanded.  The  annuncia- 
tion of  the  birth  of  Jesus  has  been  balanced  by  an 
annunciation  of  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
a  different  cycle  of  stories  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus 
has  been  employed.  The  history  of  these  changes  is, 
at  least  in  the  present  state  of  the  study,  a  hopeless 
problem.  There  is,  however,  a  series  of  phrases  in 
the  Lucan  narrative  whose  affinities  reveal  their 
origin  with  sufficient  plainness:  Luke  1.  15,  (John) 
"shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  1.  41,  (Elisa- 
beth) "was  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit."  2.  25  (of 
Simeon),  "The  Holy  Spirit  was  upon  him."  2.  26, 
"It  had  been  revealed  unto  him  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
2.  27,  "He  came  in  the  Spirit  into  the  temple." 

These  are  all  the  references  to  the  Spirit  in  the 
infancy  passages  aside  from  the  one  common  to  the 
two  accounts.  To  these  may  be  added  the  Lucan 
phrases  inserted  in  the  Christian  tradition:  4.  1, 
Jesus,  "full  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  4.  14,  "Jesus  re- 
turned in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Galilee."  10. 
21,  Jesus  "rejoiced  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Whether  in  the  infancy  narratives  the  insertion 
of  the  references  which  we  call  Lucan  was  made 
by  the  editor  of  the  writings  is  a  question  which 
belongs  to  criticism  rather  than  to  biblical  theology. 
It  may  be  that  the  Lucan  story  of  the  infancy  was 
a  part  of  the  document  which  furnished  the  material 
for  the  first  part  of  Acts.     If  so,  the  likeness  of 

148 


The  Synoptic  Gospels 

phrases  in  the  two  sections  is  thereby  accounted 
for  as  the  mark  of  the  source  common  to  both. 
"Filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit"  CEfrJUfoftg  Trvev/m-roc 
ayiov)  occurs  in  Luke  i.  15,  41,  67;  Acts  2.  4  (in 
pi.)  ;  4.  31.  "Full  of  the  Spirit"  (nXTjaBei^  or  -nXrigriq 
irvevfiarog)  occurs  in  Luke  4.  I ;  Acts  4.  8 ;  6.  3 ;  7. 
55 J  9-  l7'>  II-  24>  I3-  9-  Some  of  these,  however, 
as  Acts  13.  9,  cannot  belong  to  the  source  common 
to  Luke  and  Acts,  if,  indeed,  such  a  source  is  to 
be  assumed,  but  must  be  the  work  of  the  Lucan  edi- 
tor. References  to  the  Spirit  are  far  more  abundant 
in  the  earlier  portion  of  Acts  than  in  the  later, 
and  they  are  akin  in  character  to  those  in  the  in- 
fancy accounts.  They  are  mostly  statements  that 
individuals  were  possessed  of  the  power  of  the 
Spirit,  or  acted,  either  habitually  or  on  occasion, 
under  the  Spirit's  impulse.  Of  the  same  sort  are 
all  the  references  in  the  infancy  accounts  which  are 
peculiar  to  Luke.  These  give  no  new  material  for 
the  history  of  the  concept  in  general.  They  simply 
add  further  instances  of  the  common  Christian  idea 
of  the  charismatic  Spirit,  which  we  have  already 
seen  sparingly  expressed  by  Jesus  and  which  we 
shall  find  abundantly  used  in  the  literature  reflect- 
ing the  thought  of  the  early  church.  The  only 
peculiarity  is  that  they  ascribe  the  prophetic  Spirit 
to  individuals  in  the  pre-Christian  period;  but  this 
is  limited  to  those  who  had  to  do  with  the  fulfillment 
of  God's  plans  for  the  Messiah — John,  Elisabeth, 
Simeon.  The  passages  could  not  have  originated 
in  Judaism,  for  in  Jewish  literature,  as  our  study 

149 


The  Spirit  of  God 

of  it  has  shown,  the  Spirit  is  never  ascribed  to  con- 
temporaries. They  represent  the  reflection  of 
Christian  Messianic  thought  upon  the  period  of  the 
beginning  of  the  Messiah's  life. 

150 


CHAPTER  m 

The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

The  study  of  our  subject  in  the  New  Testament 
literature  presents  a  wholly  new  phenomenon.  There 
is  a  mass  of  conceptions,  perfectly  explicable  histori- 
cally, covering  the  entire  period  of  the  early  church 
and  appearing  in  all  its  literature.  In  the  midst  of 
it  appears,  like  the  little  horn  of  the  apocalyptic 
vision,  a  new  conception,  speaking  things  that  for 
the  history  of  religion  are  truly  great.  It  is  not 
easy  to  trace  the  history  of  its  growth.  It  belongs 
to  genius,  and  genius  is  never  amenable  to  the 
common  laws  of  evolution.  But  beside  it,  in  the 
same  composite  life,  nay,  even  in  the  same  mind, 
the  old  ideas  still  stand  and  pass  on  to  the  next 
age  with  no  one,  not  even  he  who  originated  the 
new,  perceiving  that  they  are  merely  relics  of  the 
past,  doomed  to  be  silently  pushed  aside  without  even 
a  chance  to  arm  themselves  for  the  battle  of  self- 
preservation. 

Such  a  phenomenon  is  not  uncommon  in  the  his- 
tory of  religion.  The  growth  of  high  religious  ideas 
has  always  been  due  to  personal  religious  insight, 
whether  one  calls  that  insight  genius  or  inspira- 
tion. A  course  of  religious  growth  will  often  pro- 
ceed naturally  and  explicably  for  a  certain  dis- 
tance. The  student  almost  feels  that  he  can 
calculate   its   orbit  and  project   its   future  course, 

I5i 


The  Spirit  of  God 

when  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  he  finds  that  the 
idea  has  come  into  the  grasp  of  some  new  person- 
ality and  has  shot  off  from  its  former  course  at  a 
most  inexplicable  tangent.  For  the  psychologist 
here  lies  the  spontaneity  of  personality.  Religion 
has  always  explained  such  events  as  showing  the 
inspiration  of  the  divine.  It  is  at  least  noteworthy, 
let  us  repeat,  that  every  lofty  religious  idea  which 
has  passed  into  the  world's  possession  has  been  thus 
struck  out  at  a  flash  from  the  religious  insight  of 
some  lofty  soul.  It  would  be  possible  to  divide, 
not  religions  indeed,  for  they  are  always  complexes 
of  the  lower  and  the  higher,  but  religious  concep- 
tions, into  lower  and  higher  according  as  they  were 
the  gradual  developments  of  religious  thought 
influenced  by  environment  or  the  sudden  trans- 
formation of  old  ideas  in  the  mind  of  some  religious 
genius.  Such  a  division  would  be  the  modern  cor- 
relative of  the  old  distinction  between  natural  and 
supernatural  religion.  The  former  might  be  called 
racial  religious  concepts;  the  latter,  personal  re- 
ligious concepts. 

The  new  ideas  of  the  Spirit  were  the  Pauline; 
the  old,  those  which  we  may,  for  want  of  a  better 
name,  call  primitive  Christian.  We  shall  attempt 
first  to  trace  the  connection  and  growth  of  these 
older  ideas.  They  are  found  in  all  parts  of  the  early 
Christian  literature.  It  so  chances  that  Acts  fur- 
nishes the  best  examples,  but  no  portion  of  the  lit- 
erature, not  even  the  Pauline  epistles,  is  wholly 
without  its  additions  to  this  phase  of  thought. 

152 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

The  following  classifications  may  be  made:1 

A.  The  Spirit  used  of  God  acting  in  the  individ- 
ual life: 

i.  In  the  endowment  of  individuals  with  charis- 
matic gifts: 

(a)  Prophecy:  Acts  II.  28;  20.  23;  21.  4,  11 
(comp.  Rev.  2.  7  and  parallels,  14.  13;  22.  17). 

(b)  Tongues:  Acts  2.  4,  38;  10.  44,  ff. ;  II.  15,  f. ; 
15.  8;  19.  2,  ff. 

(c)  Wisdom:  Acts  6.  10. 

(d)  Power  to  perform  miracles:  Acts  13.  9. 

(e)  Vision:  Acts  7.  55;  Rev.  1.  10;  4.  2;  17. 
3;  21.  10. 

(/)  Power  in  Christian  testimony  on  specific 
occasions:  Acts  4.  8,  31. 

(g)  Specific  or  general  direction  in  the  progress 
of  Christian  activities:  Acts  8.  29,  39;  10.  19;  11. 
12;  13.  2,  4;  16.  6,  7;  20.  28;  Jude  20. 

(h)  Charismata,  without  more  specific  defini- 
tion: Acts  5.  32;  8.  15,  f. 

2.  In  the  more  continuous  and  permanent  control 
of  individuals.  "Full  of  the  Spirit,"  used  only  by 
Luke,  of  the  individual  as  a  mark  of  character,  but 
not  resulting  in  any  specified  charismatic  power. 
An  approach  to  the  ethical  meaning,  possibly  in- 
fluenced by  the  Pauline  use:  Acts  6.  3,  5;  9.  17; 
11.  24  (comp.  Heb.  6.  4;  see  also  corresponding 
Lucan  usage  in  Luke  1.  15,  41 ;  4.  1). 

B.  The  Spirit  used  of  God  active  in  the  church 

1This  list  of  passages  is  from  the  extra -Pauline  portions  of  the  New 
Testament,  outside  the  gospels.  For  the  corresponding  Pauline  usage  see 
p.  202. 

153 


The  Spirit  of  God 

as  a  whole,  especially  for  the  development  of  its 
Messianic  testimony:  Acts  i.  8;  2.  33;  5.  3,  9,  32; 
9.  31;  13.  52;  15.  28;  Heb.  2.  4;  10.  29;  1  Pet.  1. 
12;  4.  14;  Jude  19. 

C.  The  Spirit  as  present  in  Christ,  guiding 
his  Messianic  activity:  Acts  1.  2;  10.  38;  Heb. 
9.   14. 

D.  The  Spirit  used  as  the  medium  of  revelation 
in  the  Old  Testament:  Acts  1.  16;  4.  25;  7.  51 ;  28. 
25;  Heb.  3.  7;  9.  8;  10.  15;  1  Pet.  1.  11;  2  Pet. 
1.  21. 

E.  The  seven  Spirits  of  God,  used  symbolically 
for  the  complete  self -revelation  of  God.  A  use 
peculiar  to  apocalyptic  symbolism:   Rev.    1.  4;  3. 

1;  4.  5;  5-  6. 

If  we  compare  the  use  of  the  Spirit  here  with 
that  in  earlier  periods  of  Hebrew  history,  we  find 
that  the  growth  has  been  intensive  rather  than  ex- 
tensive. No  new  use  has  appeared.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  has  been  a  very  full  development  of 
certain  of  the  older  uses.  The  Spirit  now  means 
not  something  different  from  what  it  did  formerly, 
but  means,  in  the  large,  the  same  things,  not  now 
as  matters  of  memory  or  of  hope,  but  of  a  vital, 
vivid  experience  in  actual  life. 

1.  The  use  of  Spirit  for  God  ab  intra  has  entirely 
disappeared,  yet  the  identification  of  God  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  more  close  than  in  Palestinian 
Judaism.  God  as  manifesting  himself  in  the  new 
Messianic  movement,  as  active  in  the  Christian  com- 
munity, had  very  largely  taken  the  place  of  the  dis- 

154 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

tant,  abstract  Deity  whom  the  Jew  worshiped.  The 
result  was  a  new  sense  of  relation  to  God,  a  closer 
drawing  together  of  God  and  man,  and,  because  of 
this,  a  greater  unification  of  God  in  his  essence  and 
God  in  his  active  and  intimate  connection  with 
man — that  is,  of  God  and  the  Spirit. 

2.  Here,  as  in  Palestinian  Judaism,  the  Spirit 
acts  only  upon  man,  never,  as  in  earlier  periods, 
upon  nature.  Here,  however,  there  is  a  still  further 
narrowing.  The  Spirit  is  no  longer  conceived  as 
acting  on  any  man  or  for  any  divine  purpose,  but 
only  on  Christ,  the  believer  in  Christ,  and  the  writ- 
ers of  the  Old  Testament  who  prophesied  of  Christ. 
The  human  use  has  become  narrowed  to  the 
Messianic. 

3.  The  Judaistic  Messianic  conception  was  na- 
tional. The  Spirit  was  an  expression  for  the  future 
guidance  of  God  over  the  whole  people,  which  cor- 
responded to  the  past  guidance  of  God,  in,  for 
example,  the  Mosaic  period.  In  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian conception  it  is  still  national,  for  the  Messiah 
is  "the  hope  of  Israel,"  but  the  possession  of  the 
Spirit  belongs  only  to  Christians.  They  are  now 
the  part  of  the  nation  through  which  God  works. 
Other  Jews  are  urged  to  become  believers  in  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  in  order  that  they  too  may 
share  in  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  (Acts  2.  38). 
Not  only  is  the  trend  of  the  entire  conception  of  the 
Spirit  national,  but  the  individual  conception,  prop- 
erly so  called,  is  entirely  absent.  The  Spirit  never 
comes  upon  any  man  for  any  individual  purpose, 

155 


The  Spirit  of  God 

but  only  for  the  development  of  the  purpose  of  God 
in  connection  with  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

4.  The  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of 
human  life  entirely  drops  out  of  view  in  this  litera- 
ture. It  had  already  disappeared  in  the  period  of 
Palestinian  Judaism.  Its  disappearance  was  prob- 
ably due,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  influence  of  the 
growing  hesitancy  to  affirm  union  between  the  err- 
ing spirit  of  man  and  the  holy  Spirit  of  God.  Such 
hesitancy  belongs  to  the  deistic  thought  of  Judaism 
rather  than  to  the  rich  experience  of  the  life  of  early 
Christianity.  The  usage  is  lacking  in  the  latter 
rather  because  the  early  church  had  no  need  for  it. 
The  whole  field  in  which  it  stood  had  disappeared. 
God's  relation  to  the  spirit  of  man  was  now  thought 
of  under  the  category  of  direct  creation.  Occasion 
for  the  former  phase  of  thought  has  dropped  out 
of  existence,  and  with  it  the  usage  has  disappeared. 

We  have  seen  that  the  early  Christian  conception 
of  the  Spirit  took  its  point  of  departure  from  Pales- 
tinian Judaism,  but  even  this  statement  is  too  broad 
to  express  the  facts.  The  Jewish  element  in  the  new 
thought  of  the  Spirit  came  exclusively  through  its 
Messianic  side.  We  have  seen  in  former  chapters 
how  the  Spirit  came  to  be  to  the  Jew  only  the  mem- 
ory of  God's  activity  in  the  past  periods  of  his 
history  and  a  hope  for  his  activity  in  the  Messianic 
future.  To  the  Jewish  believer  in  Christ  this  future 
had  become  present,  and  all  the  promises  and  hopes 
of  the  Messianic  Spirit  he  claimed  for  himself.  All 
else  suddenly  drops  out  of  sight.     This  situation 

156 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

shows  the  overpowering  effect  of  the  belief  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  All  thought,  all  life,  all 
personal  experience,  all  past  history,  all  idea  of 
God's  activity,  was  interpreted  by  the  early  Chris- 
tian in  the  light  of  that  belief.  God  himself  was 
transformed  from  the  God  of  Israel  into  the  "God 
and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.',  All  his 
activity — that  is,  his  Spirit — was  reckoned  as  hav- 
ing to  do  with  the  Messiah.  This  simply  means 
that  the  Christian  looked  not  backward,  but  for- 
ward, and  stood  in  a  light  of  truth  so  intense  that 
all  the  rest  of  the  world  became  for  the  moment 
darkness;  and  when  later  Christian  thought  was 
again  attracted  to  the  world-wide  activity  of  God 
it  bore  this  light  with  it  as  an  explanation  for  God's 
work  in  the  world. 

But  Palestinian  Judaism,  even  though  on  the 
basis  of  infrequent  Old  Testament  prophecy  it  had 
emphasized  here  and  there  the  idea  of  the  Spirit 
in  Messianic  times,  can  never  in  itself  account  for 
the  superabundant  use  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
literature  of  early  Christianity.  If  that  literature 
represents  with  any  adequacy  the  life  of  the  early 
church,  that  life  was  full  of  the  thought  that  the 
Spirit  was  an  actual  possession  of  the  Christian. 
The  Spirit  manifested  itself  in  every  church  and 
was  a  part  of  the  common  experience  of  many 
Christians.  Its  gifts  were  so  frequent  that  they 
served  as  the  main  test  for  the  approval  of  the 
churches  and  individual  Christians  by  God  (Gal. 
3.  2;  Acts  11.  15-18).    No  inherited  belief  will  ac- 

157 


The  Spirit  of  God 

count  for  such  a  state  of  things.     That  can  rest 
only  on  experience. 

Next  to  the  conceptions  borrowed  from  Pales- 
tinian Judaism  the  experience  of  the  early  church  is 
the  most  important  factor  in  the  study  of  the  growth 
of  the  Christian  idea  of  the  Spirit.  The  experience 
which  connects  itself  most  closely  with  that  of  the 
former  periods  of  history  is  prophecy.  The  mere 
use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament,  however, 
does  not  of  itself  give  the  key  to  its  description. 
We  have  found  in  Hebrew  thought  two  distinct 
kinds  of  prophecy:  one,  earlier,  cruder,  with  less 
ethical  import  and  more  ecstatic  impulse;  the  other, 
that  which  produced  our  prophetic  literature,  where 
the  element  of  ecstasy  was  reduced  to  the  vanishing 
point  and  a  deep  religious  and  ethical  conviction 
took  its  place.  We  have,  then,  seen  what  was  essen- 
tially the  first  element  reappearing,  partly  under 
the  influence  of  the  Greek  oracle,  in  Alexandrian 
Judaism.  Meantime  Palestinian  Judaism — partly 
because  it  had  little  experience  of  a  lofty  and  in- 
tense religious  emotion;  partly,  perhaps,  because  of 
its  reverence  for  the  Most  High — forbade  the  pro- 
phetic explanation  of  whatever  profound  religious 
experience  still  persisted.  These  hindrances  must 
have  been  great,  for  it  is  plain  that  the  nation  at 
large  longed  for  prophecy.  Suddenly  and,  it  would 
seem,  almost  unexpectedly  the  barriers  were  broken 
down  in  the  Christian  community.  It  could  have 
been  nothing  less  than  a  great  flood  that  swept  away 
the  obstacles  which  had  so  long  hindered  the  flow 

158 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

of  the  sense  of  prophetic  inspiration.  Two  things, 
both  elements  of  experience,  seem  to  have  caused 
this  flood:  One  was  the  feeling  that  in  Christ  God 
had  once  more  come  close  to  the  race  of  men;  the 
Judaistic  Most  High  had  become  the  Father.  The 
other  was  based  upon  this  fact  and  grew  out  of 
it;  it  was  the  intensity  of  the  newborn  experiences, 
the  strong  emotion  which  could  only  find  its  ex- 
planation in  the  belief  that  its  origin  was  not  human, 
but  divine.  When  an  experience  becomes  so  emo- 
tionally intense  that  one  can  say  of  it  as  Paul  did, 
that  it  took  place  "whether  in  the  body  or  out  of 
the  body  I  cannot  tell,"  it  has  reached  a  pitch  where 
some  explanation  aside  from  the  ordinary  is  im- 
peratively demanded.  In  a  period  when  life  is 
dominated  by  religious  thought  the  religious  expla- 
nation is  sure  to  be  the  one  applied. 

All  this  has  to  do  with  much  else  besides  proph- 
ecy, but  it  applies  with  peculiar  force  to  prophecy, 
the  traditional  Hebrew  means  of  divine  communica- 
tion with  man.  The  question  arises  as  to  the  kind 
of  prophecy  we  find  in  the  New  Testament.  Where 
shall  we  classify  it?  Does  it  fall  under  either  of  the 
older  categories,  or  must  we  make  a  new  place  for 
it?  The  New  Testament  offers  no  full  description 
of  its  prophecy,  but  it  gives  us  several  instances  of 
it  and  such  touches  of  description  as  allow  us  to 
draw  inferences  with  considerable  fullness.  We 
must  start  with  the  common  New  Testament  in- 
terpretation of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  Here  we 
find  representations  which  suggest  the  mechanical 

159 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ideas  of  prophecy  characteristic  of  Philo.  There  is 
in  the  New  Testament,  however,  no  passage  so 
extreme  as  many  in  Philo,  who  teaches  that  the 
prophet  becomes  simply  the  unconscious  mouth- 
piece of  the  Spirit.  The  writers  conceive  of  the 
Spirit  as  speaking,  through  the  Old  Testament 
prophet,  of  future  times  (i  Pet.  i.  10),  with  espe- 
cial reference  to  the  work  of  the  Messiah.  We 
cannot  minimize  the  idea  underlying  the  frequently 
recurring  "that  it  might  be  fulfilled."  Beyond 
doubt  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  considered 
Old  Testament  prophecy  as  having  been  given  un- 
der such  a  guidance  of  the  Spirit  that  its  words, 
without  regard  to  their  immediate  historical  ref- 
erence, had  reference  to  the  Messianic  future  of 
Israel.  The  method  of  interpretation  was  rabbin- 
ical. The  main  idea  of  prophecy  was  drawn  from 
orthodox  Judaism,  but  the  details  of  interpretation 
were  determined  by  the  Christian  Messianic  con- 
sciousness. The  early  Christian  understanding  of 
prophetic  inspiration  as  represented  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, then,  was  that  it  was  God's  absolute  control 
of  the  prophetic  utterance  for  Messianic  purposes. 

When  we  pass  over  to  the  Christian  life  what 
kind  of  experience  shall  we  expect  to  find  receiving 
the  interpretation  of  prophecy?  Obviously  it  must 
be  utterance  controlled  by  the  Spirit  for  God's  Mes- 
sianic purposes ;  or,  what  was  for  the  Christian  the 
same  thing,  for  the  purposes  of  the  Christian  church. 
This  defines  prophecy  in  two  directions :  One  is  that 
of  experience;  it  must  seem  to  the  subject  of  it  and 

1 60 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

to  others  to  be  superhuman.  The  other  is  that  of 
purpose ;  it  must  be  for  the  good  of  the  church.  It 
is  possible  to  lay  down  other  limits,  i  Cor.  14 
suggests  that  prophecy  is  not  only  "for  edifica- 
tion"— that  is,  for  the  good  of  the  church — but  also 
"with  understanding"  and  subject  to  the  conscious 
control  of  the  prophet.  "The  spirits  of  the  prophets 
are  subject  to  the  prophets,"  so  that  the  coming  of 
a  revelation  into  the  mind  of  a  prophet  does  not 
involve  unseemly  interruption  of  other  teachers  in 
the  Christian  congregation  (1  Cor.  14.  29-33). 
This  presents  a  picture  far  different  from  that  of 
the  irresponsible  frenzy  of  the  early  Hebrew  pro- 
phetic companies  or  of  the  rapt  experience  which 
Philo  relates.  The  New  Testament  nowhere  con- 
siders prophecy  to  be  uncontrollable  rhapsody.  In 
this  respect  early  Christian  prophecy  is  not  to  be 
classed  with  the  early  Hebrew  prophecy.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  a  certain  external  and  mechan- 
ical element  in  the  early  Christian  conception  of  the 
content  of  the  message.  It  sometimes  deals  with 
the  future,  and  is  to  a  certain  extent  "history  re- 
lated beforehand"  (for  examples,  see  Acts  21.  10, 
11 ;  11.  27-30).  Nay,  the  oracle  may  be  one  whose 
significance  is  not  perceived  by  the  prophet  himself 
if  he  is  not  in  accord  with  the  will  of  God  (John 
11.  47-52).  It  is  neither  wholly  the  older,  cruder 
Hebrew  ecstasy  nor  wholly  the  later,  higher  proph- 
ecy. It  is  much  nearer  the  last  than  the  first,  with 
mechanical  elements  which  come  from  the  rabbin- 
ical interpretation  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  and 
(11)  161 


The  Spirit  of  God 

all  fused  in  a  fire  of  actual  experience  and  fervent 
zeal  which  transformed  inherited  dogmas  of  in- 
spiration into  vital  facts  of  personal  religious  life. 
There  was  no  wholly  novel  element  either  of  belief 
or  of  experience,  but  there  was  such  a  new  com- 
bination of  old  factors  that  one  must  make  a  new 
category  for  Christian  prophecy.  It  will  not  fall 
under  any  that  earlier  Hebrew  history  provides. 

Closely  connected  with  prophecy  stands  the  ex- 
perience which  New  Testament  writers  call  "speak- 
ing with  tongues"  {XaXelv  yX&oocug  or  yXcjoaq).  If 
one  may  judge  from  the  frequency  of  references  to 
it  in  the  literature,  it  was  common  in  the  Christian 
communities  and  was  much  desired  not  only  by  the 
ambitious  and  factious,  but  by  the  most  sincere  and 
devout  as  well.  Paul  thanks  God  that  he  speaks 
writh  tongues  more  than  all  the  Corinthians.  It  was 
used  as  a  common  test  of  the  believers'  .acceptance 
by  God  (Acts  10.  45-47;  19.  6).  Probably  this  is 
also  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  in  Acts  8.  18  and  Gal.  3.  2  (comp.  Acts  11. 
15;  15.  8).  It  was  the  spiritual  gift  par  excellence, 
so  that  those  who  had  it  were  called  "the  spiritual," 
as  in  mediaeval  Christianity,  with  its  idea  of 
monasticism  as  the  religious  life  par  excellence, 
monks  and  nuns  were  "the  religious."  That  such 
a  usage  should  arise  indicates  that  the  experience 
was  not  only  much  desired,  but  very  common. 

The  nearest  approach  to  a  description  of  it  is 
in  1  Cor.  14.  The  most  evident  thing  about  it  is  the 
lack  of  reason  in  its  utterances.     It  is  "without 

162 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

significance,"  like  a  trumpet  which  gives  a  blast 
that  is  no  recognized  call  (verse  8).  It  is  a  sort 
of  prayer,  a  natural  utterance  of  the  spirit  of  man 
guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  is  not  edifying  to 
the  hearers  (verse  14).  To  one  not  accustomed 
to  the  phenomenon  it  might  as  well  be  a  word  in 
a  foreign  language.  If  he  is  inclined  to  be  hostile 
to  the  Christian  community,  he  may  charge  those 
who  speak  with  tongues  with  insanity  or  drunken- 
ness (Acts  2.  15).  It  arises  under  influences  of 
strong  religious  emotion — the  pentecostal  fellow- 
ship of  the  early  Christian  church  (Acts  2),  the 
enthusiasm  of  newly  awakened  faith  in  Jesus  as 
the  Christ  (Acts  8.  17;  10.  44;  19.  6),  or  the  excite- 
ment of  a  religious  assembly  (1  Cor.  14).  In  at 
least  the  first  and  last  cases  (Acts  2  and  1  Cor. 
14)  we  perhaps  see  the  influence  of  the  power  of 
suggestion.  On  the  basis  of  the  New  Testament 
description,  and  leaving  out  of  account  now  some 
elements  of  the  pentecostal  phenomena  in  Acts  2, 
one  may  define  the  glossolalia  as  the  emotional  ex- 
pression of  religious  feeling  uncontrolled  by  the 
reason.1  In  the  lack  of  the  control  of  reason  lies 
the  difference  between  speaking  with  tongues  and 
New  Testament  prophecy.  The  last  was  always 
for  edification;  it  appealed  to  the  reason;  it  con- 
veyed a  message  that  could  be  understood. 

1  Bruce  (St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  p.  244):  "The  Rift  consisted 
in  ecstatic  utterance,  not  necessarily  in  any  recognized  language,  and  not 
usually  intelligible  to  hearers.  .  .  ."  "The  speaker  was  not  master  of 
himself;  he  was  carried  headlong,  as  if  driven  by  a  mighty  wind;  he  was 
subject  to  strong  emotions  which  must  find  vent  somehow,  but  which 
could  not  be  made  to  run  in  any  accustomed  channel"  (see  also  Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica.  article  "Spiritual  Gifts"). 

163 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Having  arrived  at  this  definition,  a  host  of  anal- 
ogies in  religious  history  immediately  offer  them- 
selves. We  find  that  instead  of  being,  as  has  been 
so  often  assumed,  a  thing  unique  in  the  history  of 
religion,  it  is  quite  identical  with  very  widespread 
elements  of  religious  life  which  are  found  in 
all  periods  of  religious  history,  and  that  it  has 
analogies  in  many  religions  in  all  parts  of  the 
world.  One  finds  it  connected  with  ancient  Hebrew 
prophecy  itself.  The  worship  of  the  schools  of  the 
prophets  was  much  more  analogous  to  the  phenom- 
enon of  tongues  than  to  that  of  later  prophecy. 
One  recalls,  too,  that  to  prophesy  was  to  play  the 
madman  (comp.  i  Cor.  14.  23).  So  of  the  Greek 
oracles  (7rv0o>,  called  fidvng  by  the  later  Greeks), 
whose  meaningless  sounds  must  be  interpreted,  as 
Paul  advises  that  the  utterances  of  the  tongues 
should  always  be.  In  the  Christian  church  proph- 
ecy has  often  been  the  name  applied  to  what  was 
essentially  this  phenomenon.  Weinel1  has  very  prop- 
erly recognized  this,  and  has  gathered  instances  of 
the  use  of  incoherent  and  meaningless  expressions 
from  the  Gnostics  of  the  early  church,  from  the 
Camisards  of  southern  France,  and  the  Irvingites 
of  England.  John  Wesley  recounts  thus  an  inter- 
view with  "one  of  those  commonly  called  French 
Prophets:"  "Presently  after  she  leaned  back  in  her 
chair,  and  seemed  to  have  strong  workings  in  her 
breast,  with  deep  sighings  intermixed.  Her  head 
and  hands,  and,  by  turns,  every  part  of  her  body, 

1  Wirkungen  des  Geistes  und  der  Geister,  p.  73,  ff. 
164 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

seemed  also  to  be  in  a  kind  of  convulsive  motion. 
This  continued  about  ten  minutes,  till,  at  six,  she 
began  to  speak  (though  the  workings,  sighings,  and 
contortions  of  her  body  were  so  intermixed  with 
her  words  that  she  seldom  spoke  half  a  sentence 
together)  with  a  clear,  strong  voice,  'Father,  thy 
will,  thy  will  be  done/  .  .  .  She  spoke  much  (all 
as  in  the -person  of  God  and  mostly  in  Scrip- 
ture words)  of  the  fulfilling  of  the  prophecies,  the 
coming  of  Christ  now  at  hand,  and  the  spreading 
of  the  gospel  over  all  the  earth"  (Journals,  Janu- 
ary i,  1739). 

Although  Wesley  doubts  the  divine  source  of 
these  manifestations,  he  has  no  doubts  when  kin- 
dred experiences  come  in  connection  with  his  own 
preaching.  In  the  midst  of  a  theological  contro- 
versy "one  who  sat  at  a  distance  felt,  as  it  were, 
the  piercing  of  a  sword,  and  before  she  could  be 
brought  to  another  house,  whither  I  was  going, 
could  not  avoid  crying  out  aloud,  even  in  the 
street',  (Journals,  March  8,  1739).  A  few  months 
later  (October  28)  certain  persons  "fell  into  a 
strange  agony."  "The  violent  convulsions  all  over 
their  bodies  were  such  as  words  cannot  describe. 
Their  cries  and  groans  were  horrid  to  be  borne." 
The  whole  Journal  furnishes  a  museum  of  religious 
emotions,  working  in  all  degrees  of  intensity  and 
producing  a  wide  variety  of  physical  and  mental 
results.  It  is  not  strange  that  Wesley  regarded 
the  experiences  as  manifestations  of  the  Spirit  kin- 
dred to  those  of  the  New  Testament  time.    On  the 

16s 


The  Spirit  of  God 

side  at  least  of  psychological  phenomena  he  was 
correct  in  his  opinion  that  they  were  alike. 

The  use  of  "prophecy"  for  such  experiences 
began  very  early.  Weinel  notes  (page  75)  that 
Irenaeus,  speaking  of  Acts,  already  uses  "prophesy- 
ing" (npo(p7)TevovTeg)  for  "speaking  with  tongues" 
(XaXovvTuv  yX&ooau;)  ?  but  he  does  not  raise  the 
question  of  the  cause  for  this  change.  It  lies  in 
the  fact  that  the  Christian  church  inherited  the 
Alexandrian-Jewish  idea  of  prophecy  as  being  a 
possession  of  the  body  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  human  consciousness.  Probably, 
however,  this  came  into  the  church  not  from  the 
direct  influence  of  Alexandrian  Judaism,  but 
through  the  Gnostic  sects  with  their  large  infusion 
of  ideas  from  Greek  conceptions  of  the  oracles.  The 
first  generations  of  Christians  understood  the  re- 
lations of  prophecy  to  human  consciousness  bet- 
ter, for  they  drew  more  largely  from  Hebrew 
sources  of  thought.  This  inheritance  of  semi-Greek 
conceptions  has  greatly  obscured  the  study  both  of 
prophecy  and  of  the  glossolalia  in  the  Christian 
church. 

Christianity,  however,  has  frequently  had  the 
same  phenomenon  without  designating  it  prophecy. 
The  excitement  connected  with  the  worship  of  the 
madmen  of  Mtinster  in  the  Reformation,  and  the 
strange  hysterical  sounds  called  "the  holy  laugh" 
in  the  revivals  of  Kentucky  in  the  early  part  of  the 


1  Jren.  Adv.  Haer,  III,  12,  15.     In  III,  12,  1  Irenaeus  uses  the  expression 
"speak  with  tongues,"  referring  to  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

166 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

nineteenth  century,  belong  to  the  same  category. 
When  in  the  excitement  of  revivals  in  the  early  and 
middle  part  of  the  last  century  the  people  rose  up 
and  gave  expression  to  the  intensity  of  their  re- 
ligious emotion  in  incoherent  shouts  or  detached 
exclamations  of  praise  or  prayer,  neither  the  feeling 
nor  its  expression  seems  to  be  essentially  different 
from  those  which  issued  in  the  early  Christian 
speaking  with  tongues.  Here,  again,  one  also  finds 
the  frequent  temptation  on  the  part  both  of  the 
subject  of  the  experience  and  of  the  believing  ob- 
servers to  regard  this  peculiar  gift  as  the  supreme 
test  of  spirituality.  The  very  name  most  commonly 
used  for  it  in  America  among  the  classes  which  have 
emphasized  this  experience  points  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. It  is  "the  power,"  as  though  this  was  the 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  par  excellence. 

There  are  few  religions  making  much  of  the  facts 
of  emotion  where  one  does  not  find  emotion  ex- 
pressed in  some  form  of  sounds  uncontrolled  by  rea- 
son. The  groans  and  cries  of  a  Siberian  shaman 
or  an  Indian  medicine  man,  the  shouts  of  a  Hindu 
saniyasin  as  he  follows  the  car  of  a  god  at  some 
great  temple  feast,  the  indescribable  noises  which 
mingle  with  the  cries  of  "Allah"  in  the  worship 
of  Mohammedan  dervishes,  and  the  meaningless 
shrieks  and  yells  of  religious  orgies  over  whose  end 
all  civilization  gladly  draws  a  veil,  are  all  to  be 
put  in  the  same  psychological  category  with  the 
speaking  with  tongues.  But  because  the  dragnet 
brings  in  such  a  heterogeneous  collection  of  good 

167 


The  Spirit  of  God 

and  bad  alike  its  contents  are  not  all  to  be  treated 
as  of  the  same  moral  value.  The  ethical  worth  of 
religious  phenomena  depends  on  the  ethical  worth 
of  the  religion  rather  than  on  the  psychological 
nature  of  the  phenomena.  And  yet  it  is  true  that 
the  emotion  ungoverned  by  the  reason  is  a  dan- 
gerous force.  The  higher  exponents  of  religion  have 
always  been,  like  Paul,  distrustful  of  an  emotion 
whose  expression  to  others  breaks  away  from  the 
bounds  of  reason.  It  places  too  strong  a  force  in 
the  hands  of  a  single  one  of  the  factors  of  the  human 
soul.  Montanist  prophecy  and  Gnostic  ravings  may 
have  played  a  more  important  part  in  personal  re- 
ligious development  than  the  history  of  Christianity 
has  sometimes  been  willing  to  admit,  but  the  line  of 
growth  in  religion  has,  after  all,  not  lain  through 
them. 

It  is  possible  that  this  comparative  study  may 
help  us  to  some  further  knowledge  about  the  early 
Christian  glossolalia.  We  find  everywhere  that 
this  emotional  expression  ranges  itself  under  two 
categories;  first,  disconnected  words  and  phrases 
more  or  less  exclamatory  in  form;  and,  second, 
sounds  which  in  themselves  are  meaningless.  The 
less  extreme  forms  of  the  phenomenon,  particularly 
where  it  appears  under  the  criticism  of  modern 
civilization  with  its  exaltation  of  reason,  are  apt 
to  take  the  first  form.  Certain  modern  revivals, 
with  their  shouts  of  "Amen/'  "Glory  to  God," 
"Come,  Lord  Jesus" — the  last  descended  from  the 
ancient  "Maranatha,"  which  was  itself,  perhaps,  an 

168 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

expression  of  the  glossolalia — are  examples.  So  are 
the  "Allah,  Allah,"  "Hassan,  Hosein,  Hosein,  Has- 
san/' "Siva,  Siva,"  "Ram,  Ram,"  "Hara,  Hari," 
of  the  Mohammedan  and  Hindu  devotees.  The 
more  extreme  forms  produce,  naturally,  meaning- 
less expressions,  where  the  intense  emotion  com- 
pletely banishes  the  desire  and  sometimes  even  the 
possibility  of  reasoned  utterance.  The  "holy 
laugh"  and  the  unintelligible  cries  and  moans,  like 
those  of  wild  beasts,  which  have  accompanied  cer- 
tain religious  gatherings  among  the  lower  classes 
of  America,  are  illustrations.  Schmidt  (Gnostische 
Schriften  in  koptischer  Sprachc,  1892)  has  gath- 
ered a  list  of  such  "senseless  combinations  of  vowels 
and  consonants"  (quoted  in  Weinel,  page  yyy  note)  : 
isova,  ieaf  wjcov,  teov,  gutfafaf,  .  .  .  #w£g>£,  etc.  As  in 
this  case,  such  words  are  usually  vowel  sounds,  like 
"O,"  "Ah,"  or  such  repetitions  of  consonantal  voca- 
bles as  the  organs  most  easily  produce.1 

There  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that,  as  indeed 
usually  happens,  the  early  Christian  glossolalia 
combined  both  these  elements.  1  Cor.  12.  3  sug- 
gests that  "Jesus  is  Lord"  (Kvp*oc  'Itjoov?)  was  a 
common  exclamation,  and,  under  a  perverse  influ- 
ence not  unknown  in  other  religious  gatherings,  but 
naturally  ascribed  by  the  Christians  to  a  demon, 
"Jesus  is  anathema"  (dvadefia  'tyoovs)  was  not 
wholly  unknown.  And  yet  the  expressions  could 
not  all  have  been  of  this  intelligible  sort.     Leaving 


Compare,  however,  the  "languages"   of  the  medium  Helen  Smith,  in 
Flourney's  From  India  to  the  Planet  Mars,  and  Henri's  Le  Langage  Martien, 


169 


The  Spirit  of  God 

aside  the  presumptive  judgment  of  insanity  which 
Paul  says  the  stranger  might  pass  upon  the  phe- 
nomenon, the  symbols  which  Paul  uses  would  seem 
rather  to  indicate  meaningless  words.  He  speaks 
of  them  as  like  the  meaningless  blast  of  a  trumpet, 
the  speech  of  a  barbarian,  the  pipe  or  harp  sounded 
to  no  tune,  and  contrasts  them  with  voices  that 
have  significance.  Nay,  the  utterances  of  the 
tongues,  unlike  a  series  of  exclamations  which  have 
acquired  a  sort  of  symbolic  significance  to  the  as- 
sembly accustomed  to  them,  are  here  so  meaning- 
less that  they  cannot  even  elicit  the  response  of 
"Amen."  It  is  also  easier  to  explain  the  origin 
of  the  story  about  other  languages  in  Acts  2,  if 
we  assume  the  phenomenon  to  include  meaningless 
sounds,  than  if  we  only  assume  significant  exclama- 
tions. Such  indications  as  we  possess,  then,  lead 
to  the  same  conclusion  to  which  the  analogies  of 
comparative  study  point,  namely,  that  both  kinds  of 
phenomena  were  found  in  the  glossolalia. 

There  is  one  narrative  of  the  New  Testament 
that  has  long  been  recognized  as  containing  factors 
impossible  to  harmonize  with  the  uniform  repre- 
sentation of  speaking  with  tongues  elsewhere.  I 
refer  to  the  account  of  the  Pentecost  in  Acts  2. 
The  comparative  study  which  we  have  instituted 
leads  to  the  same  suspicions  of  the  accuracy  of  the 
account  which  have  long  found  expression  in  the 
works  of  New  Testament  critics.  The  implications 
of  the  narrative  are  perfectly  obvious.  The  editor 
of  the  book  or  of  the  source  used  sees  in  this  event 

170 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

a  speaking  in  other  languages,  so  that  those  from 
different  countries  heard  persons  speaking  in  their 
own  tongues.  To  assume  a  miracle  of  hearing 
rather  than  of  speaking  offers  no  help  and  is  a  flat 
contradiction  of  the  meaning  of  the  editor  in  saying 
that  they  spoke  with  "other"  tongues  (verse  4). 
Not  only,  however,  is  this  a  unique  event  in  New 
Testament  story  and  unprovided  for  in  any  promise 
of  Christ,  but  the  historical  study  of  religion,  which 
finds  the  glossolalia  a  quite  common  phenomenon,  is 
able  to  bring  nothing  to  compare  with  this.  The 
glossolalia  is  psychologically  explicable  as  the  tem- 
porary dominance  of  the  person  by  emotion.  The 
account  in  Acts  is  totally  inexplicable  by  psychol- 
ogy. No  religion  ever  wrought  thus  anywhere  else 
in  the  world.  This  story  is  not  supernatural;  it  is 
unnatural. 

The  comparative  study  of  religion  which  we  have 
been  using  takes  one  step  further  along  the  road 
with  the  literary  critical  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. One  deals  somewhat  cautiously  with  minute 
analysis  of  Acts,  and  yet  it  cannot  but  be  observed 
that  if  "other"  (e-repaic)  in  verse  4  is  taken  out,  and 
also  verses  6-1 1,  we  have  a  narrative  which  accords 
exactly  not  only  with  the  experience  of  speaking 
with  tongues  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  but 
with  all  that  the  study  of  other  religions  can  bring 
in  comparison.  Add  to  this  the  fact  that  Peter's 
speech  (verses  14-36)  knows  nothing  of  a  gift  of 
languages,  and  the  presumption  of  interpolation 
becomes  very  strong.    One  would  not  say  that  this 

171 


The  Spirit  of  God 

proves  an  interpolation  into  a  fairly  correct  nar- 
rative rather  than  a  legendary  development  of  the 
narration  as  a  whole,  but  if  the  textual  critic  can 
make  a  case  for  editorial  additions,  the  student  of 
the  history  of  religion  will  certainly  stand  ready 
to  furnish  some  aid  to  his  claim.  We  can,  at  least, 
say  with  assurance  that  when  the  portions  sug- 
gested above  are  omitted  we  have  left  a  narrative  of 
glossolalia  perfectly  explicable  and  quite  credible. 
The  interpolations  are  often  assumed  to  be  proof 
that  the  editor  lived  in  a  day  when  these  appear- 
ances were  no  longer  known  (so  Weinel),  but  pos- 
sibly that  conclusion  is  not  necessary.  It  may  be 
that  to  him  or  to  the  author  of  his  source  the  occa- 
sion seemed,  as  it  has  seemed  to  so  many  modern 
commentators,  to  be  so  great,  so  significant  in  the 
light  of  the  past  promise  of  Christ  and  the  future 
growth  of  the  church,  that  he  could  easily  have  in- 
serted elements  of  a  tradition  already  for  the  same 
reason  taking  shape  in  the  church,  which  made  the 
uniqueness  of  the  manifestation  correspond  to  the 
uniqueness  of  the  occasion. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  the  whole  group  of  phenom- 
ena called  glossolalia  was  assigned  to  the  Spirit. 
The  experience  was  the  result  of  an  emotion  so 
strong  that  it  seemed  extra-human.  It  was  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  church,  the  realm  of  the 
Spirit's  activity.  It  was  a  witnessing  for  Christ, 
for  which  purpose  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  upon 
the  church.  The  very  great  dominance  of  the  fac- 
tor of  emotion  in  the  experience  then  soon  led  it 

172 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

to  be  regarded  as  above  all  other  experiences  the 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit. 

It  is  at  first  sight  rather  surprising  that  the  use 
of  the  term  should  have  disappeared  so  early. 
After  the  earlier  New  Testament  times  it  is  never 
heard  of  again.  A  factor  in  this  disappearance  is 
doubtless  the  emphasis  put  by  the  church  upon  in- 
struction as  over  against  emotion,  following  the 
spirit  of  Paul's  words  to  the  Corinthians.  But  the 
emotional  elements  persisted  in  the  Montanists,  and 
yet  the  term  disappeared.  The  significant  thing, 
however,  is  that  the  experience  did  not  disappear. 
It  persisted  in  Montanism1  and  Gnosticism2  under 
the  name  of  prophecy.  It  was  the  Greek  and  Alex- 
andrian-Jewish idea  of  prophecy  entering  the  church 
which  made  unnecessary  the  continuance  of  this 
term,  for  that  idea  included  within  itself  the  earlier 
glossolalia.  The  use  of  prophecy  in  this  sense  was 
a  kind  of  historical  atavism,  a  looking  backward  to 
an  earlier  and  more  amorphous  condition  of  reli- 
gious experience.  Christian  prophecy  and  glossolalia 
actually  belong  to  two  quite  different  categories 
of  religious  expression.  Greek  influence,  both  di- 
rectly and  through  Philo,  was  responsible  for  a  long- 
continued  use  of  ideas  in  Christian  thought  which 
Hebrew  conceptions  had  already  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment times  outgrown.  The  result  in  religious  life 
has  been  the  occasional  attempt  to  exalt  under  the 
properly  revered  name  of  prophecy  a  type  of  ex- 


1  See  Eus.  H.  E.,  V.  16,  and  especially  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc,  V.  8. 
8 See  Iren.  Adv.  Haer.,  I,  13,  3. 

173 


The  Spirit  of  God 

pression  which  actually  belongs  to  a  very  low  grade 
of  religion  and  experience.  The  result  in  theolog- 
ical thought  has  been  that  the  crude  conceptions 
of  this  lower  grade  of  religious  life  have  been  ap- 
plied to  the  higher  biblical  prophecy  and  extended 
from  that  to  all  the  biblical  writings,  and  a  theory 
of  biblical  inspiration  has  been  built  up  which  is 
based  on  these  emotional  crudities.  It  has  in  it 
more  of  the  Greek  conception  of  the  oracle  than  of 
the  Hebrew  conception  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Somewhat  more  vague  is  the  expression  of  the 
connection  of  the  Spirit  with  miraculous  manifesta- 
tions. In  the  inception  of  the  Samaritan  church 
there  were  wrought  signs  and  great  powers  (Acts 
8.  13),  and  yet  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  connected 
by  the  writer  immediately  with  them.  More  inti- 
mate is  the  relation  manifested  in  the  account  of 
the  blinding  of  Bar-jesus  (Acts  13.  9,  f.),  but  even 
there  the  Spirit  is  the  origin  of  the  prophetic  word, 
while  the  miraculous  act  is  ascribed  to  "the  hand 
of  God."  The  one  miracle  for  which  an  explana- 
tion is  given  in  Acts,  the  healing  of  the  lame 
man  at  the  gate,  is  ascribed  by  Peter  not  to  the 
Spirit  of  God,  but  to  "the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth"  (4.  10).  It  accords  with  this  that  a 
distinction  is  drawn  between  the  Spirit  and  "pow- 
ers" (dwdfietg) — that  is,  miracles — in  Christ  himself 
(Acts  10.  38).  The  "power"  of  Acts  1.  8  prom- 
ised to  the  apostles  "after  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
come  upon  them"  is  not  the  miraculous  power,  but 
the  power  for  witness,  as  the  next  clause  shows. 

174 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

There  is,  then,  a  relation  of  somewhat  peculiar  com- 
plication here.  The  Spirit  is  the  cause  of  visions, 
tongues,  prophecy,  but  is  not  directly  affirmed  to 
be  the  cause  of  healing  and  other  miraculous  mani- 
festations of  divine  power  in  the  external  world 
through  the  hands  of  the  apostles.  These  are  as- 
cribed directly  to  "the  hand  of  God"  or  "the  name 
of  Jesus."  And  yet  the  Spirit  is  so  often  mentioned 
in  connection  with  them  that  there  must  have  been 
in  the  mind  of  the  early  church  some  relation.  The 
early  church  uses  the  Spirit  for  the  manifestation 
of  God  in  subjective  experience,  like  visions,  and 
in  the  immediate  outcome  of  that  manifestation  in 
personal  expression,  like  prophecy  and  tongues. 
The  facts  with  regard  to  miracles  would  seem  to 
show  that  when  the  results  passed  into  the  realm 
of  life  outside  of  the  person  the  event  was  not 
thought  of  as  due  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit,  even 
though,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul's  word  to  Bar-jesus, 
it  took  place  as  the  result  of  an  experience  which 
was  ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  This  careful  limita- 
tion of  the  Spirit  to  the  personal  experience  is  an- 
other mark  of  the  freshness,  power,  and  intensity 
of  the  early  Christian  religious  life.  The  limitation 
did  not  last  very  long.  The  distinction  is  a  fine  one, 
and  yet  the  New  Testament  writers  seem  to  draw  it 
somewhat  clearly.  The  power  to  perform  the 
miracle  and  the  impulse  to  use  that  power  were  the 
working  of  the  Spirit.  The  miracle  itself,  the  actual 
external  event,  was  the  work  not  of  the  Spirit,  but 
of  God. 

175 


The  Spirit  of  God 

All  the  charismata  which  have  been  considered 
thus  far  are  plainly  those  which  would  be  classed 
by  most  students  of  this  subject  as  gifts  of  new 
powers.  We  now  come  to  a  group  which  it  would 
be  possible  to  regard  as  augmentations  of  the  natu- 
ral powers,  namely,  wisdom  and  boldness  in  utter- 
ance (Acts  6.  3,  5,  io ;  4.  8;  13.  9).  Compare  also 
the  effect  of  the  Spirit  on  the  whole  church  in  4.  31 
and  the  entire  resultant  impression  of  the  events 
of  chapter  2.  This  distinction,  however,  is  not  one 
of  any  great  value.  Perhaps  Gunkel  is  right  in 
assuming  that  all  manifestations  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  New  Testament  were  supposed  to  be  the  gift  of 
new  powers,  and  yet  it  would  be  hard  to  prove  that 
this  position  is  correct.  It  is  true  that  Paul  speaks 
of  a  "wisdom  not  of  this  world,"  especially  shown 
"among  the  perfect,"  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  the 
desire  of  the  apostles  that  the  seven  should  be  men 
"full  of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom,"  or  in  the  irre- 
sistible "wisdom"  with  which  Stephen  met  his 
disputants  of  the  synagogue,  any  idea  other  than 
that  of  superlatively  good  judgment  in  the  affairs 
concerned.  It  is  not  mere  intellectual  knowledge, 
to  be  sure,  but  rather  the  Hebrew  idea  of  Hokh- 
mah,  as  practical  skill  in  meeting  the  actual  needs 
of  life.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  this  to  be 
a  new  power  inserted  from  without  into  the  Spirit- 
filled  man.  Indeed,  that  would  inject  an  unnatural 
meaning  into  the  word  which  the  exegesis  of  the 
narrative  in  no  way  demands. 

The  distinction  between  supernatural  powers 
176 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

directly  given  and  natural  powers  augmented  is 
artificial.  The  only  form  in  which  it  could  be  de- 
fended, aside  from  an  unreal  supernaturalism, 
would  be  to  show  that  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  early  church  such  a  distinction  could  be  made. 
Probably  they  made  no  such  distinction.  Doubtless 
in  a  rough  way  all  spiritual  phenomena  seemed  to 
them  to  be  directly  supernatural  in  origin,  but  it 
is  certain  that  they  did  not  draw  fine  lines  of  dis- 
tinction upon  the  basis  of  introspective  psychology. 
Certainly  we  can  make,  from  the  modern  point  of 
view,  no  absolute  distinction.  All  the  manifesta- 
tions have  alike  a  psychological  basis.  Even  such 
phenomena  as  visions  and  the  speaking  with 
tongues  are  in  reality  as  much  the  augmentation 
of  natural  powers  as  are  wisdom  and  boldness  of 
utterance. 

The  reason  for  the  ascription  of  wisdom  and 
boldness  to  the  Spirit  is  easy  to  see.  "Wisdom" 
and  "boldness"  are  never  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  ex- 
cept when  they  are  a  part  of  the  means  of  develop- 
ment of  the  church.  The  "wisdom"  is  skill  in 
making  arguments  for  the  Christian  belief;  the 
"boldness"  is  boldness  in  pleading  the  Christian 
cause  in  the  face  of  popular  hostility.  We  may 
well  surmise,  however,  that  in  addition  to  this  re- 
lation to  Christian  progress  there  must  have  been 
a  relation  to  Christian  experience.  The  "wisdom" 
and  "boldness"  must  have  been  accompanied  by  an 
emotional  element  to  have  caused  their  assignment 
to  the  Spirit.  The  narratives  themselves  give  some 
(12);  177 


The  Spirit  of  God 

indications  which  would  lead  us  to  judge  that  this 
is  so,  especially  in  the  case  of  boldness.  The  in- 
stances cited  above  occur  in  connection  with  events 
which  would  be  the  natural  causes  of  emotional 
excitement:  a  crisis  in  the  life  of  the  community 
(Acts  4.  5,  ff.),  a  common  prayer,  with  all  the 
accompaniments  of  contagious  enthusiasm,  ending 
in  an  occurrence  which  seemed  to  them  to  be  mirac- 
ulous— "the  place  was  shaken" — and  as  the  result 
of  this  experience,  which  could  not  but  have  had  a 
strongly  emotional  element,  they  "were  all  filled 
with  the  Spirit,  and  spake  the  word  with  boldness" 
(Acts  4.  31).  The  connection  of  the  Spirit  with 
"comfort"  (Acts  9.  31)  and  "joy"  (Acts  13.  52) 
also  indicates  emotional  experience  like  that  which 
is  assigned  to  the  Spirit. 

When,  therefore,  we  gather  up  all  these  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  and  ask  ourselves  the  question,  What 
were  the  experiences  for  which  the  early  church 
gave  this  explanation?  we  find  a  certain  common 
underlying  ground:  The  Spirit  was  used  as  the 
name  for  the  divine  cause  which  the  early  church 
assumed  to  lie  beneath  those  experiences  whose 
strong  emotional  element  seemed  to  mark  their 
extra-human  origin,  and  whose  providential  end 
was  the  advancement  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.1 

The  two  essential  elements  of  this  definition  are: 

'Compare  Gunkel's  definition:  "The  workings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
certain  mysterious  powers  operating  in  the  range  of  the  life  of  men,  which 
stand  in  a  certain  definite  relation  to  the  life  of  the  Christian  congregation, 
which  in  no  case  work  damage  to  men,  which  frequently  take  place  under 
the  naming  of  God  or  Christ,  and  in  all  cases  belong  only  to  such  men  as 
are  not  unworthy  of  a  connection  with  God"  (p.  43).  This  includes  the 
two  essential  elements  noted  in  the  following  paragraph,  but  seems  to 
include  certain  nonessential  accompaniments  as  well. 

178 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

First,  the  fact  of  emotional  experience.  The  proof 
of  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  lies  within  the  life  of 
the  feeling.  This  was  the  case  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Hebrew  usage  of  the  word.  The  earliest 
prophets  believed  that  the  Spirit  of  Jahveh  had 
come  upon  them  because  of  what  they  felt  with- 
in their  own  consciousness.  In  this  respect  the 
primitive  Christian  conception  is  in  the  closest  pos- 
sible relation  to  the  primitive  Hebrew  conception. 
It  represents  the  same  fundamental  idea.  The 
second  essential  element  is  the  Messianic  purpose 
of  the  experience.  This  is  the  direct  outgrowth  of 
the  Hebrew  Messianic  hope,  but  to  say  it  repre- 
sented only  that  hope  would  be  to  put  much  too 
narrow  an  interpretation  on  it.  We  have  seen  that 
from  the  first,  and  especially  at  the  first,  the  idea 
of  the  Spirit  of  Jahveh  working  in  the  mind  of 
man  was  only  applied  to  such  experiences  as  could 
be  interpreted  to  have  in  some  way  a  bearing  upon 
the  development  of  the  purposes  of  Jahveh.  They 
must  be  religious  or  national,  and  we  remember 
that  those  ideas  were  not  two,  but  one.  To  the 
early  church  the  religious  and  national  purpose  of 
God  summed  itself  up  in  the  development  of  his 
Messianic  purpose  through  Christ.  It  is  of  interest 
to  note  that  the  Spirit  thus  really  plays  the  same 
role  in  the  early  church  that  it  does  in  the  early 
Hebrew  nation.  It  has  already  been  noted  that  the 
Spirit  had  also  in  the  early  church  returned  once 
more  to  its  ancient  limitations.  It  now  meant  only 
the  divine  working  in  man,  having  lost  the  wider 

179 


The  Spirit  of  God 

meaning  of  God  in  nature  that  it  had  acquired  in 
the  middle  Hebrew  thought. 

This  spiral  movement  of  thought  is  not  without 
its  reason.  The  early  Hebrew  idea  arose  because 
of  profound  emotional  experiences  for  whose  origin 
men  felt  that  they  must  posit  a  power  of  God.  Not 
less  profound  were  the  emotional  experiences  of  the 
early  church  which  they  assigned  to  the  Spirit  of 
God,  while  the  connection  of  these  experiences  with 
the  plans  and  purposes  of  God  was  to  them  even 
plainer  than  it  had  been  to  the  early  Hebrews.  Ex- 
periences of  the  same  nature  suggested  religious 
thoughts  of  the  same  purport.1  We  are  here  only 
following  once  more  a  common  movement  in  the 
history  of  religion.  It  has  already  been  illustrated 
so  fully  that  we  hardly  need  again  to  return  to  it. 
A  great  emotion  must  have  a  great  occasion.  It 
must  also  have  a  great  outcome  in  life.  All  men 
of  strong  religious  feeling  in  all  races  have  felt 
that  their  profounder  emotions  could  have  no  occa- 
sion less  than  the  working  of  a  god,  and  no  out- 
come in  life  less  than  the  great  purpose  of  fulfilling 
his  designs.  The  man  who  interprets  in  this  way 
the  stirring  in  the  depths  of  his  soul  cannot  but 
feel  himself  to  be  inspired.  Visions,  as  in  the  case 
of  Mohammed  and  Buddha,  not  to  mention  many 
a  saint  of  the  Christian  church,  have  often  been  the 

1  If  the  principle  here  expressed,  of  like  results  from  like  psychological 
causes,  had  always  been  adhered  to,  it  would  have  saved  a  vast  amount  of 
fruitless  labor  in  the  field  of  religious  history.  The  futile  attempt  to  trace 
historic  connections  between  widely  scattered  myths,  like  that  of  a  flood, 
or  of  a  first  man.  or  of  the  divinity  of  the  sun,  or  of  rites  like  totemism 
or  sacrifice,  has  been  a  work  of  supererogation.  Like  causes  produce  like 
results  in  the  minds  of  prehistoric  men  as  well  as  in  those  of  later  ages. 

1 80 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

product  or  the  accompaniment  of  the  feeling,  but 
back  of  the  vision  has  lain  the  divine  force  of  an 
emotion,  without  which  the  vision  would  never 
have  been  interpreted  as  containing  a  divine 
message. 

Herein  lies  the  justification  for  placing  the  mod- 
ern experience  of  emotional  conversion  in  this 
chapter  of  common  religious  history.  It  is  essen- 
tially the  same  mighty  emotional  experience  inter- 
preted religiously  as  the  presence  and  power  of  God 
in  the  soul.  Traditional  theology  has  made  a 
correct  use  of  the  term,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  earliest  Christian  terminology,  when  it  has 
called  this  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  We  shall  see 
later  that  Pauline  theology  contributes  an  element 
to  this  phraseology,  but  the  Pauline  element,  except 
where  it  is  a  mere  phrase  of  dogma,  has  come  to 
be  fused  in  the  alembic  of  religious  feeling;  indeed, 
it  had  its  origin  with  Paul  in  religious  feeling.  It 
matters  little  that  in  the  early  church  the  emotion 
and  its  accompaniments  which  were  called  the  gifts 
of  the  Spirit  usually  came  not  at  but  after  con- 
version. With  the  Jewish  Christian  the  moments 
of  strong  religious  feeling  were  usually  experienced 
after  conversion,  as  he  came  somewhat  slowly  to 
realize  the  bearing  of  his  new-found  faith  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  on  the  national  hope  and  on  his  re- 
ligious life.  In  the  modern  world  the  moment  of 
strong  religious  emotion  usually  comes,  if  it  comes 
at  all,  at  the  moment  when  a  person  realizes  the 
conquest  of  egoistic  impulses  by  the  higher  life  of 

181 


The  Spirit  of  God 

an  altruistic  sympathy — that  is,  when  he  purposes 
that  God  rather  than  self  shall  rule  his  life.  Doubt- 
less the  average  Jew  who  became  a  believer  in 
Christ  had  no  such  battle  to  fight  between  the 
fundamental  forces  of  human  nature.  Not  until 
somewhat  later  in  the  church  did  the  question  of 
self  or  not-self  become  the  supreme  test  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  Jew  to  whom  Christianity  made  its 
appeal  was  already  religious.  The  problem  which 
it  presented  to  him  was  not  ethical,  but  intellectual, 
namely,  Was  Jesus  the  Messiah?  If  he  were,  then 
the  Hope  of  Israel  had  drawn  near,  the  last  days 
were  at  hand,  and  the  more  the  Christian,  be  he 
Jew  or  Gentile  in  origin,  saw  the  full  bearing  of 
this,  the  more  motive  his  religious  faith  presented 
not  only  for  an  urgent  activity,  but  for  a  mighty 
emotion.  So  it  comes  about  that  the  New  Testament 
emphasizes  the  working  of  the  Spirit,  not  so  often 
at  the  moment  of  conversion  as  on  later  occasions 
under  the  impulse  of  Christian  labor  or  in  the  sym- 
pathy of  Christian  fellowship. 

There  is  a  group  of  experiences  referred  to  the 
Spirit  the  psychological  nature  of  which  is  less  easy 
to  ascertain  than  that  of  those  we  have  been  con- 
sidering. This  is  the  group  in  which  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Acts  assigns  to  the  Spirit  the  guid- 
ance of  th^  church  in  its  progressive  expansion. 
The  purpose  of  Acts  has  been  much  debated,  and 
this  is  not  the  place  to  enter  upon  any  extended 
study  of  it.  It  is  necessary  for  us,  however,  to  note 
that  at  least  a  part  of  the  evident  design  of  the 

182 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

writer  is  to  show  that  the  progress  of  Christianity 
from  a  Jewish  sect  to  a  universal  religion  was  made 
under  the  direct  guidance  of  God.  It  was  not  at 
all  according  to  the  plan  of  man,  but  of  God.  In 
his  emphasis  of  this  polemic  purpose  the  author 
returns  with  constant  reiteration  to  this  point. 
Again  and  again  at  crucial  periods  of  the  history  he 
marks  how  God  led  the  church  into  some  new  field 
of  expansive  labor. 

These  marks  of  divine  guidance  fall  under  two 
categories:  the  providential  control  of  circum- 
stances, as  when  the  persecution  at  Jerusalem  drove 
the  church  into  Judea  and  Samaria  (chapter  8)  ; 
and  the  guidance  of  direct  divine  suggestion,  as 
where  two  visions  and  a  message  of  the  Spirit  insure 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  Cornelius  and  his 
friends.  Such  circumstances  of  guidance  are  usually 
assigned  to  the  Spirit. 

In  Acts  2  the  first  expansion  of  the  church  is  as- 
cribed to  the  Spirit.  Stephen  was  "full  of  the  Spirit'* 
(6.  5).  When  the  disciples,  driven  from  Jerusalem 
by  the  persecution  which  arose  about  Stephen's 
death,  preached  at  Samaria  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  marked  God's  approval  (Acts  8.  17).  The 
conversion  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip  was  under  the 
direction  of  the  Spirit  (8.  29,  ff.).  In  verse  26 
"an  angel  of  the  Lord"  implies  a  vision.  Peter's 
preaching  to  Cornelius  and  his  friends  was  pre- 
pared for  by  a  message  of  the  Spirit  and  confirmed 
by  the  gift  of  tongues  from  the  Spirit  (10.  19, 
44) .    The  beginning  of  Paul's  missionary  journeys 

183 


The  Spirit  of  God 

was  the  result  of  a  message  from  the  Spirit  (13. 
2),  and  the  passage  into  Europe  was  the  result  of 
hindrances  of  Paul's  plan  by  the  Spirit  (16.  6,  f.). 
•These  events  include  prophetic  utterances  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  phenomenon  of  the  tongues,  but  most 
of  the  indications  are  so  vaguely  given  that  we  can 
only  surmise  what  experiences  they  represent.  We 
may  make  such  surmises  on  the  ground  of  our 
study,  for  we  have  found  the  classes  of  experience 
fairly  well  defined.  It  may  be  regarded  as  probable 
that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Samaritans  was  the 
glossolalia,  as  Gunkel  surmises.  This  would  ac- 
count for  the  desire  of  Simon  Magus  that  he  might 
possess  the  power  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
probable  that  the  message  of  the  Spirit  to  Philip 
and  Peter  is  to  be  interpreted  as  of  the  nature  of 
prophetic  impulse.  One  can  see  its  psychological 
origin  in  the  suggestion  of  .circumstances.  When 
Philip  is  already  in  the  presence  of  the  eunuch  the 
impulse  comes  to  join  him  as  a  traveling  com- 
panion.1 As  the  story  of  Cornelius  lies  at  present 
in  the  narrative  the  impression  is  conveyed  that 
the  message  of  the  Spirit  to  Peter  contained  in- 
formation supernaturally  supplied:  "Three  men 
wait  thee.  Go  with  them,  nothing  doubting,  for 
I  have  sent  them."  We  certainly  cannot  say  with 
any  assurance,  however,  that  this  would  be  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  facts  if  we  had  them  as  they 

1  Possibly  the  mention  of  the  Spirit  is  an  editorial  insertion,  in  accord 
with  the  conception  of  the  author  of  Acts  that  all  progress  of  the  church 
was  under  divine  guidance.  The  element  of  emotion,  which  was  usually 
the  cause  of  a  belief  in  spiritual  suggestion,  is  not  evident  on  the  face  of 
the  narrative;  still  it  may  have  been  present,  induced  by  some  circum. 
stance  to  us  unknown. 

184 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

occurred.  The  knowledge  that  three  men  had 
presented  themselves  in  search  of  him  lies  so  near 
the  surface  that  one  cannot  claim  its  supernatural 
impartation  to  Peter  as  any  part  of  the  necessary 
interpretation  of  the  story.  What  is  essential  in 
both  these  cases  is  an  impulse  so  strong  that  it 
seemed  to  those  who  received  it  to  possess  a  divine 
force.  It  came  from  God.  It  was  a  voice  of  the 
Spirit.  Whether  that  interpretation  would  have 
been  given  to  the  experience  had  it  not  resulted  in 
Christian  progress  is  a  question  which  we  have  no 
data  to  answer. 

What  shall  we  say  of  such  an  expression  as  "the 
Spirit  caught  away  Philip"?  What  kind  of  an  ex- 
perience does  this  indicate?  It  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  it  indicated  any  direct  effect  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  material  body.  It  contains  a 
superficial  resemblance  to  such  uses  as  2  Kings  2. 
1 6,  with  its  suggestion  of  the  Spirit  of  Jahveh  as 
a  physical  force,  transporting  human  bodies  at  will. 
Possibly  its  form  may  have  been  suggested  by  that. 
But  it  belongs  to  a  period  which  possessed  an  en- 
tirely different  conception  of  the  Spirit  from  that 
of  the  time  of  Elijah.  To  put  this  interpretation 
upon  it  would  remove  it  from  the  analogy  of  New 
Testament  usage,  and  that  should  only  be  done  as 
a  last  resort.  The  same  prophetic  impulse  which 
suggested  to  Philip  that  he  should  join  the  eunuch 
seems  to  have  impelled  his  hastening  away  at  the 
end  of  the  interview.  "Hpnaoev  ("caught  away"), 
which  implies  a  hasty  or  violent  snatching  away, 

185 


The  Spirit  of  God 

a  supernatural  physical  action  as  well  as  a  prophetic 
impulse,  is  probably  due  to  the  development  of  tra- 
dition. We  have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Pentecost 
narrative  that  the  editor  of  Acts  is  not  always 
critical  in  his  treatment  of  the  phenomena  of  the 
Spirit,  especially  when  they  mark  the  divine  guid- 
ance of  the  progress  of  Christianity. 

Even  more  undefined  is  the  experience  which  lies 
behind  Acts  16.  6,  f.  Paul  and  his  companions 
sought  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia  and  later  in 
Bithynia,  but  the  Spirit  in  each  case  hindered  them. 
That  it  is  called  in  one  place  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in 
the  other  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  cannot  be  supposed  to 
indicate  any  difference  in  the  experience  repre- 
sented. One  may  surmise  a  prophetic  message  or 
impulse  to  some  member  of  the  party,  like  the  one 
which  came  to  Paul  on  the  voyage  to  Rome  (27. 
23),  or  a  vision,  like  the  one  which  soon  after 
called  them  to  Macedonia.  The  mere  force  of  cir- 
cumstances is  hardly  a  sufficient  explanation  unless 
the  references  to  the  Spirit  be  assigned  to  the  tradi- 
tional development,  for,  wherever  its  meaning  can 
be  ascertained,  a  message  of  the  Spirit  is  found  to 
stand  for  some  personal  religious  experience. 

These  indefinite  references  require  no  change  in 
the  definition  of  the  charismatic  Spirit  given  above. 
The  charismatic  gifts  were  not  the  common  pos- 
session of  all  Christians.  They  did  not  flow  di- 
rectly from  the  fact  of  Christian  faith,  as  the  phrase 
"faith  and  the  Spirit"  shows.  The  Spirit  was  never 
regarded  in  the  pre-Pauline  church  as  an  essential 

186 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

part  of  the  ordinary  Christian  life,  but  as  a  donum 
superadditum.  In  every  instance  which  is  recorded 
the  charismata  came  in  special  circumstances,  where 
strong  emotional  feelings  were  natural.  The  com- 
pany of  the  disciples,  the  combat  of  strenuous  con- 
troversy, prayer  in  a  time  of  crisis,  the  suggested 
opportunity  of  Christian  work — such  as  these  are 
the  occasions  which  produced  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit. 
Nowhere  in  the  book  of  Acts  is  there  proof  that 
the  author  regarded  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  the 
ordinary  religious  life.  In  this  respect  the  book 
is  not  Pauline.  The  only  phrase  which  points  in 
a  Pauline  direction  is  one  which  is  used  of  the  body 
of  disciples  in  2.  4;  4.  31 ;  13.  52;  of  Peter  in  4.  8; 
of  the  seven  in  6.  3;  of  Stephen  in  6.  5;  7.  55;  of 
Paul  in  9.  17;  of  Barnabas  in  11.  24.  It  occurs 
most  frequently  in  the  earlier  part  of  Acts,  but  this 
is  true  also  of  all  uses  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  con- 
nected in  some  places  with  particular  charismatic 
gifts  which  were  temporary  in  their  nature;  as  the 
gift  of  tongues  at  Pentecost,  Peters  speech  on  the 
same  occasion,  the  vision  of  Stephen  (7.  55),  Paul's 
prophetic  words  to  Bar-jesus  (13.  9),  boldness  of 
preaching  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  (4.  31).  The 
"fullness"  (nXriQG)fj,a)  of  the  Spirit  seems  sometimes 
to  be  only  an  emphatic  way  of  expressing  the  action 
of  the  Spirit  in  various  charismatic  gifts.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  these  particular  gifts 
seemed  to  Christian  tradition  to  be  of  more  power 
or  strangeness  in  themselves  or  of  any  greater  im- 
portance in  the  development  of  the  character  than 

187 


The  Spirit  of  God 

gifts  which  are  not  so  designated.  There  are,  how- 
ever, cases  of  the  use  of  this  phrase  which  seem 
to  connect  it  with  the  description  of  character  and 
to  make  the  Spirit  a  permanent  abiding  element  of 
the  Christian  life. 

This  would  be  the  most  natural  interpretation  of 
the  phrases  "full  of  faith  and  the  Holy  Spirit," 
"full  of  wisdom  and  the  Spirit,"  "a  good  man  and 
filled  with  the  Spirit,"  where  the  Spirit  is  correlated 
with  permanent  elements  of  character.  Such  a  use 
suggests  Pauline  affinities.  It  is  probable  that  a 
Pauline  element  is  to  be  recognized  here.  The  com- 
parison of  the  gospel  of  Luke  with  the  gospel 
sources  shows  that  the  phrase,  when  used  in  the 
third  gospel,  belongs  to  the  vocabulary  of  the 
author  rather  than  to  that  of  the  original  sources. 
When  Acts  was  written  the  Pauline  use  of  the  term 
as  the  basis  of  Christian  life  and  character  must 
certainly  have  been  common  in  the  Christian  church. 
This  author  seems  to  make  use  of  it  on  occasion  in 
a  Pauline  way,  but  without  careful  discrimination, 
and  without  holding  in  mind,  in  any  clearly  defined 
way,  the  Pauline  use  as  a  part  of  his  conscious 
theological  furnishing.1  The  use  of  the  phrase  in 
Acts,  then,  is  not  uniform;  but  the  element  of 
Pauline  use  is  slight.  The  general  thought  of  early 
Christianity  as  represented  in  the  book  is  very 
clearly  that  of  the  Spirit  as  a  temporary  possession 
of  particular  men,  the  evidence  of  which  consisted 


1  This  would  point  toward  an  author  who  knew  Pauline  terms,  but  was 
not  thoroughly  imbued  with  Pauline  thought. 

188 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

in  particular  powers  that  came  and  went  in  ways 
which  seemed  to  the  early  church  to  be  unaccount- 
able, and  so  supernatural. 

The  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  Christ  also  takes  its 
starting  point  from  charismatic  usage.  We  have 
found  the  Messianic  significance  to  be  one  of  the 
most  frequent  uses  in  Palestinian- Jewish  literature. 
The  hope  for  the  presence  of  God  in  the  future  his- 
tory of  Israel  was  correlative  with  the  memory  of 
his  presence  in  past  history,  in  the  work  of  the 
prophets,  and  the  same  term,  "the  Spirit/'  was  used 
of  both.  In  early  Christian  usage  Christ  was  a 
person  who  had  the  Spirit  of  God.  "God  anointed 
him  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  with  power"  (Acts 
10.  38).  Acts  1.  2,  "after  he  had  given  command- 
ment through  the  Holy  Spirit/'  indicates  the  same 
thing.  The  words  of  Christ  are  the  words  of  the 
Spirit.  Nor  does  16.  7,  "the  Spirit  of  Jesus,"  need 
an  interpretation  essentially  different.  It  is  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  its  Messianic  activity,  called  the 
Spirit  of  Jesus  because  of  its  mission  in  developing 
the  work  which  Jesus  began.  The  use  is  akin  to 
that  in  2  Cor.  3.  17,  18,  without  being  in  any  way 
a  direct  borrowing  of  the  Pauline  usage. 

Is  the  Spirit  used  in  primitive  Christian  thought 
for  God  ab  intra?  We  found  in  the  middle  period 
of  the  Old  Testament  the  beginning  of  the  use  of 
Spirit  for  God  ab  intra.  This  use  did  not  grow 
later.  It  tended  rather  to  disappear,  inhibited  by 
the  growing  transcendental  idea  of  God  in  Judaism. 
Now  that  the  belief  in  Christ  as  the  Messiah  and 

189 


The  Spirit  of  God 

the  appearance  of  phenomena  regarded  as  spiritual 
in  human  life  had  once  more  brought  God  near  to 
man,  one  would  naturally  expect  the  use  of  the 
Spirit  for  God  ab  intra  to  be  revived.  There  is 
evidence  that  such  was  the  tendency,  although  the 
cases  are  not  so  clear  as  to  make  it  more  than  a 
tendency.  Passages  where  the  words  of  Jahveh  in 
the  Old  Testament  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  should 
not  be  used  in  this  connection.1  The  conception  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  active  originator  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Hebrew  institutions  does  not 
amount  to  identification  of  the  Spirit  with  God. 
The  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  Old 
Testament  writings  had  its  rise  in  the  most  barren 
periods  of  Judaism,  when  all  the  tendencies  of 
thought  were  against  any  identification  of  the  Spirit 
and  God.  There  is  no  evidence  that  its  use  in  the 
New  Testament  will  bear  any  different  interpreta- 
tion from  that  in  the  preceding  Judaism.  Occa- 
sionally the  writers  say  "the  Holy  Spirit  spake" 
(Acts  28.  26),  and  at  other  times  assign  authorship 
to  Jahveh  (13.  47);  yet  at  still  other  times  a 
writing  is  ascribed  to  David  (2.  25)  or  a  prophet 
(2.  16).  All  these  are  condensed  expressions. 
When  the  writers  become  definite  they  specifically 
recognize  the  three  elements  of  the  Old  Testament 
revelation:  God,  the  Spirit  of  God  as  inspiring 
the  writers,  the  writers  themselves.     Compare  Acts 

j(  1  Denio  (The  Supreme  Leader,  p.  48)  so  uses  such  cases  as  Heb.  9.  8: 
"The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author  of  the  Old  Testament  regulations  as  to  wor- 
ship, the  authorship  of  which  is  attributed  in  verse  20  to  God.  In  Acts 
28.  24-27  the  utterance  of  Jehovah  (Isa.  6.  6-10)  is  called  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

190 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

4.  24,  25,  "O  Lord,  thou  who  didst  make  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is: 
who  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  mouth  of  David  our 
father,  didst  say"  ('0  rov  Trarpdc  tj/jlcjv  did  nvevfiarog 
dylov  ardfiaroq  Aaveid  naiddg  aov  knrcjv)}  With  this 
accords  2  Pet.  I.  21,  "For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by 
the  will  of  man;  but  men  spake  from  God,  being 
moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  passage  probably 
represents  the  conscious  judgment  of  the  early 
church  more  nearly  than  any  other  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  here  God  and  the  Spirit  are  as  clearly 
distinguished  as  in  any  Hebrew  or  Jewish  writing. 
We  must  be  careful  not  to  use  popular  condensed 
expressions  as  the  scientific  statements  of  complex 
ideas,  especially  where  exact  distinctions  are  at  best 
drawn  only  with  difficulty. 

Not  less  erroneous  is  it  to  assume  that  because 
the  Spirit  does  the  work  of  God  it  is  therefore  equiv- 
alent to  God  ab  intra.  The  case  in  Acts  which  comes 
nearest  to  the  use  of  the  Spirit  for  God  ab  intra  is 
in  the  story  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  Deceit  is 
against  the  Spirit,  for  the  Spirit  is  the  controlling 
force  in  the  Messianic  movement  (5.  3),  but  verse 
5  affirms  that  this  is  also  a  sin  against  God.  And 
yet  it  is  easy  to  press  even  this  case  farther  than 
the  facts  will  allow.  The  starting  point  is  not  God 
ab  intra,  but  God's  active  working  through  the 
Spirit  as  guiding  the  destinies  of  the  church.  It 
was  this  Spirit  that  Ananias  attempted  to  deceive. 

*The  text  presents  variations,  but  it  is  still  possible  that  6ta  ttv-  ay- 
ardfiaroc  all  belong  to  the  original.  See  Westcott  and  Hort,  note  in  Vol. 
II;  Blass's  Acta  Apostolorum,  in  loco,  also  note  in  Stuttgart  edition  N.  T. 

191 


The  Spirit  of  God 

But  this  Spirit  was  divine,  and  the  most  natural 
contrast  between  it  and  men  would  be  in  the  terms 
used — "thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God." 
It  hardly  affirms  so  conscious  a  theology  as  is  im- 
plied by  the  equation,  the  Holy  Spirit  —  God  ab 
intra.  The  thought  is  still  moving  in  the  realm  of 
the  Spirit  as  the  Messianic  activity  of  God,  and  does 
not  go  beyond  it.  The  identity  of  the  Spirit  with 
God  is  not  necessarily  an  identity  of  essence,  but 
of  operation  and  interest. 

The  introduction  to  the  decision  of  the  council 
in  15.  28,  "it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
to  us,"  bears  essentially  the  same  significance.  It 
is  a  recognition  of  the  Spirit's  active  operation  in 
the  church.  Its  special  interest  lies  not  in  the  identi- 
fication of  the  Spirit  and  God,  but  of  the  Spirit  and 
the  thought  of  the  church,  in  the  confidence  with 
which  they  venture  to  interpret  "the  mind  of  the 
Spirit."  One  questions  whether  it  does  not  imply 
the  experience  of  some  prophetic  impulse  or  other 
manifested  phenomenon  in  the  assembly  of  the 
church,  which  authenticated  to  them  their  decision 
as  that  also  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  not  certain  that  thus 
early  in  the  church  the  mere  unanimous  decision  of 
a  Christian  assembly  without  prophetic  or  other 
verification  would  be  so  pointedly  identified  with 
that  of  the  Spirit.1     The  older  commentators  inter- 

l  If,  as  WeizsScker  and  others  suppose,  the  decision  must  be  put  at  a  later 
time  (comp.  21.  25,  where,  it  is  said,  the  Jewish  Christians  seem  to  assume 
that  Paul  has  not  heard  of  the  decree),  this  statement  would  still  be  true. 
It  would  need  modification  only  if  the  text  is  the  product  of  post -Pauline 
Christianity.  Even  then  it  would  be  an  unusual  form  in  which  to  state 
the  belief  that  a  mere  decision  of  judgment  was  made  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Its  parallel,  if  this  be  the  meaning,  is  not  known 
elsewhere. 

192 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

preted,  quite  naturally,  "the  Spirit  in  us,"  but  this 
is  not  what  the  passage  says,  nor  would  the  analogy 
of  usage  elsewhere  seem  to  warrant  this.  In  fact, 
later  scholars  usually  reject  it.  In  some  marked 
way  the  decision  must  have  been  approved  by  the 
Spirit.  This  interpretation  places  the  passage  in 
the  class  of  charismatic  uses. 

Only  one  other  passage  needs  attention  here:  7. 
51,  "Ye  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  your 
fathers,  so  also  ye."  In  this  we  have  plainly  the 
prophetic  Messianic  use,  linking  together  the  word 
of  the  Spirit  through  the  prophets  and  the  word 
through  the  Messianic  activity  of  the  church.  In 
neither  case  is  there  an  identification  of  the  Spirit 
with  God  in  any  different  sense  than  in  all  prophetic 
charism. 

That  the  Spirit  was  divine  goes  without  saying. 
The  entire  significance  of  all  the  experience  we  have 
been  studying  was  that  its  subjects  believed  that 
they  were  directly  moved  upon  by  God  himself.  The 
experience  was  their  closest  personal  relation  to 
God.  That  their  "gifts"  were  the  direct  result  of 
the  operation  of  God  they  no  more  doubted  than 
they  doubted  the  evidence  of  their  senses.  The 
immediate  inference  from  the  phenomena  to  its 
divine  causation  was  to  them  perfectly  evident. 
With  simple  naivete  they  found  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  the  great  God  himself  was  stirring  in 
them.  And  yet  they  were  not  so  narrow  and  self- 
confident  as  might  be  made  to  appear.  It  was  not, 
to  use  the  phrase  one  sometimes  hears,  that  God 
(13)  193 


The  Spirit  of  God 

was  concerned  with  their  affairs;  they  were 
concerned  with  God's  affairs.  The  Spirit  never 
came  for  their  individual  behoof  or  advantage.  It 
was  only  when  their  labor  was  in  behalf  of  the 
progress  of  the  cause  of  the  Lord  that  God  moved 
upon  them.  That  God  should,  under  those  cir- 
cumstances, personally  direct  their  lives  to  the 
fulfillment  of  his  own  great  purposes  of  cosmic  im- 
portance seemed  to  them  to  be  no  strange  thing; 
nor,  for  that  matter,  did  they  find  much  skepticism 
in  the  life  about  them,  so  far  as  it  influenced  them. 
Jewish  Sadduceeism  and  Greek  Epicureanism  prob- 
ably had  little  weight  in  the  classes  from  which 
Christianity  drew  its  first  converts.  God  acting 
upon  men  through  their  conscious  experience  was 
the  Spirit.  They  drew  no  fine-spun  distinctions 
between  God  acting  and  the  activity  of  God.  To 
use  a  Ritschlian  phrase,  the  Spirit  had  for  them  the 
value  of  God  even  before  that  could  be  said  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah.  From  the  first  God  came  nearer 
to  them  personally  by  the  Spirit  than  he  did  by 
the  Christ.  This  does  not  make  the  Spirit  histori- 
cally more  important  for  the  explanation  of  Chris- 
tianity, because  the  Christ  stood  behind  the  Spirit. 
The  ground  for  the  explanation  of  these  experiences 
through  the  Spirit  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  Messiah 
had  come,  and  God  was  therefore  revealing  him- 
self more  clearly  to  men  than  ever  before.  Certainly 
the  Spirit  was  God.  But  quite  as  certainly  the 
difference  drawn  in  modern  theology  between  the 
Spirit  as  God  and  the  Spirit  as  the  influence  of 

194 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

God  would  have  been  meaningless  to  the  early 
church.  The  Spirit  was  both.  They  unified  or 
separated  the  Spirit  and  God  in  a  way  that  is  very 
puzzling  to  a  logical  theology,  but  very  reasonable 
when  we  take  our  stand  on  experience  rather  than 
on  dogma. 

We  have  found  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  all 
our  explanations  here,  as  in  the  Old  Testament,  in 
the  study  of  experience.  The  test  to  which  all 
theories  must  be  brought  is,  Do  they  help  to  eluci- 
date the  experience  of  the  early  church  ?  If  not,  we 
may  pass  them  by  as  irrelevant  to  an  historical 
study.  In  this  light  certain  questions  which  have 
been  prominent  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Spirit  become  meaningless.  They  have  to  do 
with  logic  rather  than  life. 

It  is  wrell  for  us  to  emphasize  the  religious  value 
of  these  experiences  which  the  early  Christians  as- 
cribed to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit.  To  feel  that 
they  were  standing  in  immediate  relation  to  the 
great  purposes  of  God;  that  they  were  working  in 
accord  with  those  purposes;  and  that  he  himself, 
at  times,  consciously  and  visibly,  moved  in  their  life, 
made  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Almighty  ex- 
ceedingly real.  Add  to  this  the  belief  that  the  direct 
channels  of  the  revelation  of  God  to  man  which  had 
been  known  to  the  ancient  prophets  were  once  more 
opened,  and  that  too  under  a  movement  of  vastly 
more  importance,  and,  speaking  reverently,  of  more 
concern  to  God,  than  was  that  of  the  prophets,  and 
we  have  an  impulse  for  the  religious  interpretation 

195 


The  Spirit  of  God 

of  experience,  richer,  fresher,  and  more  command- 
ing than  the  world  has  ever  seen  before  or  since. 
Weinel  suggests  that  the  first  century  of  the  Chris- 
tian era  saw  an  epidemic  of  nervous  disorders,  like 
the  mediaeval  St.  Vitus's  dance  and  the  "prophecy" 
of  the  Camisards,  assisted  by  suggestion  and  auto- 
suggestion, and  stimulated  by  the  expectation  of 
the  speedy  end  of  the  world  (pages  219-227).  It 
may  be.  Certainly  psychology  has  not  yet  spoken 
its  last  word  upon  the  interrelations  of  the  nervous 
and  the  religious  life.  But  no  psychological  inter- 
pretation of  the  phenomena  of  the  first  Christian 
century  will  be  complete  which  leaves  out  of  account 
the  tremendous  power  of  the  religious  convictions 
as  aids  to  the  explanation  not  merely  of  the  signifi- 
cance, but  of  the  facts  of  those  experiences  which 
the  early  church  called  spiritual.  Leaving  aside 
the  fact  of  chronological  nearness  to  the  life  of 
Christ,  it  is  not  surprising  that  an  age  which  real- 
ized so  intensely  its  nearness  to  the  divine  should 
have  produced  a  religious  literature  which  later 
ages  have  never  been  able  to  supersede.  It  is  of 
little  use  for  the  church  of  one  age  to  simulate  the 
phenomena  of  another.  Each  age  must  interpret 
life  into  its  own  language.  But  the  principle  of  re- 
ligious life  ever  stands  the  same,  in  all  ages  and  all 
faiths.  It  is  found  in  that  contact  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  which  the  early  church  called  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  section  of  literature  which  we 
have  been  studying  does  not  represent  the  highest 
mark  of  its  realization,  for  it  discovered  the  evi- 

196 


The  Primitive  Christian  Conception 

dence  of  that  contact  only  in  marked  and  extraor- 
dinary experiences,  not  in  the  facts  of  daily  life; 
but  its  intensive  power  made  up  in  a  measure  for 
its  lack  of  extensive  application.  We  shall  find  the 
completion  of  this  idea  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 

197 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Pauline  Writings 

Among  the  many  contributions  of  Paul  to  the 
developed  thought  of  Christianity  only  one,  that  of 
the  universality  of  the  gospel  apart  from  the  law, 
is  more  striking  in  itself  or  more  far-reaching  in 
its  effects  than  his  theory  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  very 
natural  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  in  Paul  should 
have  received  much  careful  and  elaborate  study. 
So  prominent  has  the  Pauline  phase  of  the  doctrine 
been  in  the  Christian  church  that  it  has  practically 
overshadowed  every  other,  and  the  theory  of  tradi- 
tional orthodoxy  has  been  consciously  based  on 
what  it  supposed  to  be  the  teaching  of  Paul,  the  rest 
of  Scripture  being  used  simply  to  illustrate  or  sup- 
port Pauline  thought.  The  older  theology,  with  its 
ideas  of  mechanical  unity  in  Scripture,  interpreted 
the  Old  Testament  as  containing  the  same  doctrine 
as  the  writings  of  Paul,  "only  not  so  clearly  re- 
vealed," while  all  the  New  Testament  was  inter- 
preted as  containing  a  doctrine  exactly  identical 
with  Paul's.  Later  scholarship  has  laid  aside  so 
unnatural  a  theory  of  the  unity  of  Scripture,  and 
yet  has  not  always  gained  as  much  as  it  might  from 
its  recognition  of  the  variety  of  biblical  ideas. 
Especially  has  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  lacked  the 
light  which  might  have  come  from  more  careful 

198 


The  Pauline  Writings 

attention  to  its  genetic  development.  The  rich  con- 
tent of  the  fully  developed  Pauline  thought  can 
never  be  properly  understood  unless  we  take  into 
account  the  stages  by  which  it  grew  and  its  relation 
to  the  experience  not  only  of  Paul  himself,  but  of 
the  Hebrew  nation  and  the  Christian  church.  Then 
only  can  the  doctrine  be  seen  in  its  proper  relations 
and  each  of  its  factors  receive  due  emphasis.  Then 
only,  also,  can  we  avoid  the  danger  of  interpreting 
Paul's  thought  by  the  subjective  judgment  of  later 
Christian  thought  as  to  what  is  important  or  rea- 
sonable in  the  spiritual  life — a  danger  to  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  its  affinities  for 
mystic  and  pietistic  thought,  has  been  peculiarly 
liable. 

Paul's  uses  of  "Spirit"  and  its  derivative  adjec- 
tive "spiritual"  have  been  often  gathered.  Any 
'attempt  to  state  them  in  summary  must  present 
material  often  before  collected  in  various  ways.  It 
must  proceed  upon  certain  assumptions  of  exegesis, 
for  nowhere  in  the  entire  treatment  of  the  subject 
do  we  meet  so  many  passages  where  the  meaning 
of  "Spirit"  is  obscure  or  in  dispute.  The  question 
has  been  asked  whether  Paul  may  not  have  covered 
two  or  more  meanings  in  the  same  use  of  the  word. 
The  problem  was  raised  in  an  essay  in  Jowett's 
Commentary  on  Thessalonians,  Galatians,  and 
Romans,  and  is  treated  at  length  and  somewhat 
cavalierly  in  Dickson's  St.  Paul's  Use  of  Flesh  and 
Spirit  (page  98,  ff.).  Dickson  asserts  that  there 
can  be  in  the  mind  of  a  writer  but  one  meaning  of 

199 


The  Spirit  of  God 

a  word  in  each  of  the  cases  of  its  use,  and  that  we 
must  not  attribute  the  indecision  of  the  exegete  to 
the  mind  of  the  author.  "Exegesis  can  only  address 
itself  to  its  task  with  any  hope  or  confidence  of  a 
successful  result  on  the  assumption  that  the  author 
whom  it  seeks  to  interpret  has  not  thus  played  fast 
and  loose  with  language,  but  has  attached  to  it  in 
each  instance  a  definite  meaning,  not  manifold,  but 
one''  (page  101,  f.). 

In  a  general  way  this  principle  of  exegesis  is 
sound,  but  in  the  application  of  it  certain  modifying 
facts  must  be  borne  in  mind.  First,  not  every  writer 
thinks  so  clearly  as  never  to  mingle  two  shades  of 
meaning  in  one  instance  of  the  use  of  a  word.  Cer- 
tainly Philo's  use  of  "Logos"  was  not  always  either 
personal  or  impersonal.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  even  in  so  vigorous  a  thinker  as  Paul  words 
are  always  used  with  sharply  defined  distinctions. 
Is  it  always  true,  in  Paul's  epistles,  that  "law,"  for 
example,  means  one  of  two  quite  separate  things — 
either  the  law  of  Moses  or  the  divine  commands 
revealed  through  conscience  and  nature? 

In  the  second  place,  inclusiveness  of  meaning  is 
different  from  ambiguity  or  duplicity  of  meaning.  In- 
clusiveness is  very  common  and  perfectly  legitimate. 
In  such  cases  there  is  a  unity  in  which  the  two  mean- 
ings combine  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  In  such 
cases  we  do  not  say  "either-or,"  but  "both-and." 
The  ideas  are  combined  in  a  concept,  not  vague  and 
undefined,  but  definitely  gathering  both  in  a  higher 
unity.     It  is  by  a  concept  of  this  nature  that  we 

200 


The  Pauline  Writings 

interpret  Christ's  meaning  in  the  phrase  "the  king- 
dom of  God."  The  meaning  is  both  moral  and 
eschatological,  yet  not  as  distinct  from  each  other, 
but  as  both  included  in  a  more  complete  conception 
than  either  alone  represents.  We  do  not  speak  in 
such  cases  of  vagueness,  but  of  comprehensiveness. 
Whether  there  is  any  such  higher  unity  back  of 
Paul's  uses  of  the  Spirit  it  will  be  our  duty  later 
to  inquire. 

Yet,  again,  modern  distinctions,  often  the  result 
of  ages  of  philosophical  thinking  and  long  courses 
of  thought,  did  not  always  exist  for  the  ancient 
thinker.  The  modern  interpreter  will  not,  if  he 
wishes  to  become  a  true  interpreter,  carry  back  mod- 
ern distinctions  and  attempt  to  make  them  apply 
to  ancient  literature.  He  will  bear  in  mind  the 
simpler  stage  of  thought  that  his  author  represents. 
Often  the  thought  of  an  ancient  writer  was  vague, 
as  is  that  of  childhood,  and  words  were  used  upon 
which  we  now  sometimes  put  distinctions  of  mean- 
ing not  present  to  those  who  first  spoke  them.  For 
example,  it  is  quite  possible  that  to  Philo,  strange 
as  the  idea  may  be  to  us,  the  Logos  may  have  been 
neither  personal  nor  impersonal,  because  the  con- 
ception of  personality  had  not  yet  clearly  defined 
itself.  A  modern  case  in  point  would  be  the  popu- 
lar use  of  the  theological  term  "the  Trinity."  Is  it 
certain  that  the  Christian  in  the  pew,  or  even  always 
in  the  pulpit,  attaches  either  a  tritheistic  or  a  mono- 
theistic concept  to  the  term,  or  may  it  be  that  he 
sometimes  uses  it  in  so  vague  a  way  that  his  thought 

201 


The  Spirit  of  God 

does  not  penetrate  to  the  distinction  of  one  and 
three  ? 

The  following  are  the  uses  of  the  Spirit,  in  the 
sense  of  the  divine  Spirit,  in  Paul's  writings : 

A.  The  Spirit  used  for  God  acting  in  the  indi- 
vidual life: 

i.  In  the  endowment  of  individuals  with  charis- 
matic gifts : 

(a)  Prophecy:   i  Thess.  5.   19;  2  Thess.  2.  2; 

1  Cor.  12  to  14,  passim;  1  Tim.  4.  1. 

(b)  Tongues:  1  Cor.  12  to  14,  passim. 

(c)  Wisdom:  1  Cor.  2.  6-13;  7.  40;  12.  8  (comp. 
also  "the  word  of  knowledge,"  1  Cor.  12.  8). 

(d)  Power  to  perform  miracles:  1  Cor.  12.  9, 
10. 

(e)  Discerning  of  spirits :  1  Cor.  12.  10. 

(/)  Interpretation  of  tongues:  1  Cor.  12.  10. 

(g)  Faith:  1  Cor.  12.  9;  2  Cor.  4.  13. 

(h)  Specific  or  general  direction  in  the  progress 
of  Christian  activities :  Eph.  3.  5 ;  Rom.  8.  26 ;  Eph. 
6.  18. 

(*)  Boldness  in  Christian  testimony:  2  Cor.  3. 

17,  t 

(/)  Charismata,  without  more  specific  defini- 
tion: 1  Thess.  1.  5;  4.  8;  Rom.  15.  19;  1  Cor.  2. 
4;  2  Cor.  1.  22 ;  5.  5; ,11.  4;  Gal.  3.  2-5;  Eph.  1.  13. 

B.  The  Spirit  used  of  God  as  the  originating 
force  of  the  Christian  life,  and  as  manifest  in  its 
ethical  and  religious  development:   1  Thess.   1.  6; 

2  Thess.  2.  13;  Rom.  5.  5;  8.  2,  6,  9,  11,  14,  f., 
16,  23;  9.  1;  14.  17;  15.  13,  16,  30;  1  Cor.  2.  10- 

202  * 


The  Pauline  Writings 

13;  3.  16;  6.  11,  19;  2  Cor.  1.  22;  3.  3,  8,  17,  f.; 
6.  6;  12.  18;  13.  14;  Gal.  3.  14;  4.  6;  5.  5,  16b; 
6.  8;  Eph.  2.  18,  22;  3.  16;  4.  3,  f.,  30;  5.  18;  6. 
17;  Phil.  i.  19;  2.  1;  3.  3;  Col.  1.  8;  2  Tim.  1.  14; 

Titus  3.  5. 

If  we,  as  before,  compare  this  use  with  earlier 
periods  of  Hebrew  thought,  we  find  that,  aside  from 
the  one  great  new  feature  of  use,  the  ethical  usage, 
the  former  tendencies  have  continued  to  develop. 

1.  The  use  of  the  Spirit  for  God  ab  intra  has  now 
completely  disappeared.  Even  such  identifications 
as  Acts  5,  where  a  lie  to  God  is  a  lie  to  the  Spirit, 
are  not  found  in  Paul's  writings.  Clear  thinking 
has  taken  a  step  forward.  There  was  a  possibility 
in  early  Hebrew  post-exilic  literature  that  God  act- 
ing would  come  to  be  so  identified  with  God  in  es- 
sence that  the  advantage  which  Hebrew  thought  pos- 
sessed in  a  distinguishing  term  might  be  lost.  This 
did  not  take  place.  In  the  Pauline  thought  the  sep- 
aration was  made  so  plain  that  the  danger  passed 
entirely  beyond  the  horizon.  In  Hindu  thought  the 
procedure  was  in  the  opposite  direction.  First, 
there  was  a  monotheistic  identification  of  all  divine 
power.  This  included  within  itself  both  the  first 
cause  and  its  manifested  activity;  in  Hebrew 
terms,  both  God  and  Spirit.  Then,  since  result  is 
an  essential  part  of  manifestation,  and  since,  as  in 
dreams,  the  essence  which  is  also  the  active  power 
is  the  sole  cause  of  the  seeming  material  product, 
cause,  actor,  and  result  were  all  identified,  and  pan- 
theism was  the  outcome.     This  pantheism  became 

203 


The  Spirit  of  God 

the  more  completely  impossible  to  the  Hebrew,  even 
had  he  been  inclined  to  philosophize,  because  he  had 
a  term  which,  as  thought  developed,  led  to  a  sharp 
distinction  between  the  first  cause  and  its  mani- 
festation. 

2.  Here,  as  in  Palestinian  Judaism,  the  Spirit 
acts  only  upon  men;  and,  as  everywhere  else  in  the 
New  Testament,  only  upon  the  believer  in  Christ 
and  upon  men  in  the  field  of  Hebrew  history.  The 
entire  usage  is  Messianic.  As  the  idea  of  the  or- 
ganized church  evolved  we  find  the  Spirit  used  with 
growing  frequency  for  the  divine  control  of  the 
church  as  a  whole.  This  use,  however,  is  the  same 
that  occurs  in  the  document  which  is  incorporated 
in  the  early  part  of  Acts.  The  basis  of  the  concep- 
tion is  always  individual.  The  church  has  the 
Spirit  because  its  members  have  it.  The  idea  that 
the  church  is  itself  an  entity  independent  of  its 
membership,  and  that  its  members  have  the  Spirit 
because  the  church  has  it,  is  a  fiction  which  it  is 
impossible  to  take  as  reality  so  long  as  we  keep 
Paul's  figure  of  the  "body,  the  church,"  where  he 
himself  keeps  it,  in  the  realm  of  illustration.  The 
church  as  the  repository  of  the  Spirit  is  a  Greek 
notion  which  rests  on  Platonic  idealism  and  finds 
no  sanction  in  Paul's  theology.  He  knows  of  no 
Spirit-filled  substance  called  the  church,  but  only 
of  Spirit-filled  persons,  who  together  make  up  the 
church. 

3,  4.  The  positions  with  regard  to  the  Messianic 
conception  and  to  the  Spirit  as  the  origin  of  physical 

204 


The  Pauline  Writings 

life  are  identical  with  those  of  primitive  Christian 
usage  (see  page  155,  f.). 

Paul's  ideas  of  the  Holy  Spirit  group  about  one 
conception,  that  of  God  manifest  in  the  individual 
life  of  the  Christian.  This  is  shown  (a)  with  re- 
gard to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life.  To 
the  Spirit  is  due  its  inception  (Rom.  8.  2).  (b) 
It  sanctifies  the  life  (1  Cor.  6.  11).  The  holiness 
and  the  ethical  value  of  the  life  are  due  to  the  Spirit. 
(c)  It  directs  all  the  expressions  of  the  Christian 
life,  whether  of  prayer,  of  public  worship,  or  of  any 
form  of  witness  for  Christ.  No  part  of  the  religious 
life  is  outside  the  range  of  the  Spirit's  activity.  At 
the  same  time  there  is  a  special  emphasis  on  the 
Spirit  as  the  source  of  sanctification.  Now,  sancti- 
fication  is  considered  by  Paul  not  primarily  as  an 
element  in  the  witness  of  the  church,  although  it 
has  its  value  for  that,  but  as  the  essential  of  the  life 
that  is  related  to  God.  The  Christian  is  holy  be- 
cause God  is  holy ;  his  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  so  must  be  holy.  The  whole  matter 
of  sanctification  is  an  immediate  inference  from  the 
holiness  of  God. 

This  takes  the  subject  out  of  the  range  of  Chris- 
tian witness,  where  the  conception  of  the  Spirit 
had  before  rested  in  the  early  church,  but  not  out 
of  the  range  of  the  progress  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom. The  Spirit  is  still  conceived  of  as  working 
for  that,  and  for  that  only.  Before  only  the  work 
of  the  Messiah  himself  and  the  propagation  of  the 
kingdom  in  the  lines  of  its  external  growth  had 

205 


The  Spirit  of  God 

been  assigned  to  the  Spirit.  Paul  has  now  brought 
into  account  the  internal  development  of  the  king- 
dom in  the  individual  life.  These  are  the  two  hemi- 
spheres which  together  make  the  entire  content  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  All  has  now  been 
brought  within  the  range  of  the  Spirit's  activity. 
Paul  has  made  complete  the  theoretical  apprehen- 
sion of  the  envelopment  of  the  world's  religious 
progress  within  the  folds  of  the  purposeful  activity 
of  God,  under  the  name  of  the  Spirit.  The  progress 
of  the  conception  has  reached  perfection,  so  far  as 
its  definition  as  a  conception  is  concerned.  The 
only  possible  enlargement  beyond  the  Pauline  idea 
is  in  the  broadening  of  the  definition  of  religious 
progress.  That  progress  remained  for  him,  as  for 
the  rest  of  the  early  church,  limited  to  the  work  of 
the  Messiah  through  the  Christian  church. 

No  question  of  genesis  in  the  entire  range  of  this 
study  has  received  so  much  attention  as  has  the 
problem  of  the  origin  of  the  peculiar  Pauline  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit.  In  fact,  it  is  the  only  question 
of  genesis  in  the  history  of  this  subject  which  has 
received  any  treatment  that  could  be  called  at  all 
adequate. 

The  possible  sources  of  Pauline  religious  ideas 
are  Greek,  Alexandrian  Jewish,  Palestinian  Jewish, 
the  Old  Testament,  the  tradition  and  the  experi- 
ence of  the  Christian  church,  and  Paul's  own  ex- 
perience. To  each  of  these,  excepting  the  first  and 
third,  the  origin  of  the  Pauline  idea  has  been 
ascribed. 

206 


The  Pauline  Writings 

Pfleiderer  (Philosophy  of  Religion,  page  161) 
finds  the  origin  in  the  Alexandrian  dualism  of  flesh 
and  Spirit,  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  world,  and 
compares  in  proof  i  Cor.  2  and  Wis.  Sol.  8  and  9 ; 
"but  this  dualism" — and  this  is  what  is  distinctively 
new  in  his  view — "was  overcome  in  principle  in  the 
one  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  spiritual  man  who 
sprang  from  heaven  and  was  elevated  to  heaven; 
and  from  this  one  historical  point-  the  advancing 
subduing  of  it,  through  the  abiding  dominion  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  Christian  community,  is  once 
for  all  secured."1 

The  derivation  of  Paul's  idea  from  Palestinian 
Judaism  is  never  claimed,  for  there  was  nothing 
in  that  form  of  Jewish  thought  from  which  Paul 
could  have  immediately  derived  his  conception. 
Dickson  (St.  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and 
Spirit,  page  146,  ff.)  assigns  the  origin  of  Paul's 
use  to  the  Old  Testament,  not  merely  as  furnishing 
the  language,  but  also  "the  warrant  and  encourage- 
ment" to  give  the  language  the  wider  scope  which 
Paul  does.  Dickson  finds  this  warrant  in  the  pro- 
phetic use  of  the  Spirit  as  the  power  of  God  in  the 
Messianic  kingdom.  The  difficulty  with  this  posi- 
tion is  that  it  really  offers  no  origin.  The  charis- 
matic Spirit  and  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  physical 
and  mental  life  are  the  only  uses  which  were  known 
to  the  prophets.  All  their  Messianic  references 
find  explanation  under  these  categories,  and  indeed 

1  One  should,  however,  compare  Pfleiderer's  Hibbert  Lectures  (p.  62)  for 
some  modification  of  this  position. 

207 


The  Spirit  of  God 

are  all  charismatic.  If,  then,  Paul  puts  upon  them 
another  meaning  than  they  originally  bore,  the  ques- 
tion whence  he  derived  that  meaning  is  still  to  be 
answered.  The  facts,  however,  exempt  us  from 
the  need  of  raising  this  problem.  Nowhere  do  the 
Pauline  writings  point  to  an  Old  Testament  origin 
for  his  peculiar  idea  of  the  Spirit. 

Bruce  (St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity, 
page  243,  ff. )  derives  the  ethical  idea  of  the  Spirit's 
work  from  the  charismatic  idea.  Paul's  percep- 
tion of  the  disaster  that  would  come  to  Christian 
life  if  these  gifts  became  divorced  from  reason  and 
conscience  "was  probably  one  of  the  causes  which 
led  St.  Paul  to  study  carefully  the  whole  subject" 
and  to  insert  an  ethical  element  in  the  Spirit's  work- 
ing. The  common  factor  in  the  new  view  and  the 
old  was  "the  axiom  that  the  supernatural  is  divine ; 
the  element  peculiar  to  his,  that  the  moral  miracle 
of  a  renewed  man  is  the  greatest  and  most  impor- 
tant miracle  of  all"  (page  249).  "Divine  action, 
when  transcendent  and  miraculous,  is  intermittent." 
"To  eliminate  this  fitfulness  and  secure  stable  spir- 
itual charismata,  transcendency  must  give  place  to 
immanence"  (page  252).  "The  immanency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  carries  further  along  with  it  .  .  . 
that  his  influence  as  a  sanctifier  is  exerted  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  laws  of  a  rational  nature"  (page 

2S3)- 

This  is  a  logical  statement  of  what  is  sometimes 
put  in  condensed  form,  as  though  it  needed  only  to 
be  stated  in  order  to  be  accepted,  that  Paul  consid- 

208 


The  Pauline  Writings 

ered  "the  Christian  life  to  be  as  miraculous  as  was 
the  speaking  with  tongues."  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  natural  and  the  miraculous  was  not  one 
of  the  postulates  of  early  Christian  thought.  It  is 
certain  that  neither  Paul  nor  any  other  Christian 
of  the  first  or  second  generations  made  his  philos- 
ophy of  the  Spirit  on  any  such  hypothesis.  All  the 
phenomena  of  life  were  "powers  of  God,"  and  Paul 
was  too  much  of  a  Hebrew  to  distinguish  between 
first  and  second  causes. 

Another  form  of  derivation  from  Old  Testament 
ideas  by  logical  processes  is  that  suggested  by  Bey- 
schlag  (Biblical  Theology,  II,  208,  f.,  Eng.  tr.)  : 
"The  human  pneuma  is  to  him  [Paul]  originally  an 
individualized  spark  of  the  divine,  which,  however, 
could  not  burst  into  flame,  because  of  the  pressure 
and  dominance  of  the  odp£  [flesh].  But  there  comes 
upon  it  the  power  of  that  very  Spirit  from  which  it 
sprang,  and  the  smoking  wick,  in  that  element  of 
fire,  becomes  a  clear  burning  flame."  So  arises  the 
new  life,  which,  because  it  is  a  life  of  God,  is  holy, 
and  the  Spirit  becomes  a  Spirit  of  sanctification. 
This  theory  would  trace  the  origin  of  Paul's  doc- 
trine to  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  the  spirit  of  man 
as  coming  from  God.  The  great  objection  to  this 
is  that  it  leaves  out  of  account  the  continuity  of 
thought  through  Jewish  and  early  Christian  media, 
and  assumes  that  Paul  abandoned  the  conceptions 
of  his  own  day  to  turn  back  to  older  ideas  whose 
power,  and  even  whose  presence,  cannot  be  traced 
in  the  literature  which  reflects  his  immediate  mental 
(14)  209 


The  Spirit  of  God 

heritage.  That  is  not  the  way  thought  usually  pro- 
ceeds. The  charismatic  Spirit  had  completely  dis- 
placed the  cosmic  Spirit  in  Jewish  thought,  and  one 
looks  with  suspicion  on  any  theory  of  Pauline  origin 
which  ignores  this  displacement. 

Still  another  type  of  reference  of  this  idea  to 
the  Old  Testament  is  that  of  Wendt.1  According 
to  him  Paul  derives  his  doctrine  from  the  ethical- 
religious  (sittlich  religiosen)  activities  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Gunkel  objects  to  this  that 
the  fundamental  thought  of  the  apostle  must  come 
not  from  reading,  but  from  experience  (page  79). 
In  addition,  however,  one  may  object  that  the  eth- 
ical-religious is,  after  all,  not  prominent  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  that  the  early  Jewish-Christian 
thought  had  almost  if  not  entirely  ignored  it.  The 
theory  encounters,  as  does  that  of  Beyschlag,  the 
difficulty  of  assuming  that  Paul  quite  ignored  the 
Judaic  and  Christian  thought  on  this  subject,  leap- 
ing in  an  unexpected  way  to  an  old  and  never 
prominent  usage  of  a  limited  period  of  Hebrew 
literature. 

Gunkel  (page  79,  ff.),  with  his  emphasis  on  the 
environment  of  Paul  and  the  Jewish  meaning  of 
the  Spirit  in  extra-Pauline  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, naturally  makes  much  of  Paul's  own  experi- 
ence as  the  source  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Spirit. 
This  must,  on  any  hypothesis,  have  been  a  large 
factor.  Paul's  doctrines  were  never  scholastic  or 
logical.     They  all  represented  life,  and  that  life  his 

1  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  und  Geist. 
2IO 


The  Pauline  Writings 

own.  His  belief  was  always  the  explanation  of  his 
own  life,  but  to  understand  his  life  one  must  take 
into  account  his  surroundings.  Two  questions  then 
arise :  What  was  the  contribution  of  Paul's  environ- 
ment to  his  idea  of  the  Spirit?  and,  What  elements 
did  his  own  experience  furnish? 

The  environment  of  Paul  contained  two  factors 
wHich  influenced  his  religious  thinking:  Judaism 
and  the  Christian  church. 

Paul's  dependence  upon  the  theology  of  Judaism 
is  most  often  thought  of  in  a  negative  way.  He 
revolted  from  it,  we  say,  and  struck  out  his  own 
path  of  thought  through  much  mental  strife.  And 
yet,  after  all,  that  is  only  true  of  certain  phases  of 
it,  especially  of  those  which  were  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  results  of  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.  It  is  true  chiefly  of  ideas  of  salvation  and 
of  the  function  of  the  law ;  in  general,  of  the  realm 
of  soteriology.  In  relation  to  other  subjects  it  is 
doubtful  if  his  ideas  could  be  described  as  more  than 
a  very  slightly  modified  Judaism.  In  everything 
not  affected  by  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
he  stood  to  the  end  on  the  traditional  ground  of 
Judaism.  Witness  his  conception  of  idols  as  the 
representations  of  demons,  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  of  eschatology.1 

We  may  then  expect  to  find  the  Palestinian- Jew- 
ish idea  of  the  Spirit  at  the  basis  of  his  conceptions 
on  this  subject.     In  this  he  simply  shares  the  con- 

1  An  admirable  presentation  of  this  whole  subject  has  been  made  in  The 
Relation  of  St.  Paul  to  Contemporary  Jewish  Thought,  by  H.  St.  JohnThack- 
ery. 

211 


The  Spirit  of  God 

dition  of  the  early  church.  He  presents  the  same 
idea  of  the  Spirit  as  connected  with  the  Messianic 
manifestation,  the  same  ascription  of  peculiar 
wisdom  or  mental  gifts  to  its  power,  the  same  belief 
that  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  times,  and 
especially  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  were 
under  its  guidance.  Not  less  is  the  Judaistic  lim- 
itation of  the  Spirit  seen.  It  is  not  operative  upon 
nature,  but  only  upon  man,  and  is  limited  in  history 
to  Israel,  with  a  wide  expansion  of  manifestation 
in  the  Messianic  time.  That  Paul  was  dependent 
upon  Jewish  rather  than  Alexandrian  ideas  is  seen 
most  conclusively  in  his  utter  neglect  of  one  im- 
portant element  characteristic  of  that  system  of 
thought,  the  Spirit  as  a  cosmic  power.  Pfleiderer 
sees  dependence  for  the  antithesis  of  odp!-  and 
nvevfia  upon  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  yet  it  is  this 
very  book  which,  more  than  any  other  extant  work 
of  the  Alexandrian- Jewish  school,  emphasizes  the 
Spirit  as  a  cosmic  power.  Now,  Paul  seems  not  to 
have  been  without  glimpses  of  cosmic  relations  in 
the  purpose  of  God,  as  in  Rom.  8.  22,  but  he  never 
places  the  Spirit  in  any  connection  with  them.  The 
Spirit  is,  as  in  Palestinian  Judaism,  reserved  solely 
for  divine  action  upon  human  hearts. 

When  Paul  came  into  the  Christian  church, 
bringing  with  him  the  beliefs  of  his  Jewish  theol- 
ogy, he  came  into  a  community  which  had  already 
moved  somewhat  from  his  own  former  Jewish 
point  of  view.  Its  progress  had  been  along  the 
most  direct  and  simple  lines.    The  Messianic  time 

212 


The  Pauline  Writings 

was  to  be  a  period  of  remarkable  manifestations  of 
the  Spirit.  That  time  had  now  come.  Moreover, 
the  experience  of  the  Christian  community  pre- 
sented a  wealth  of  phenomena  explicable  most  easily 
by  this  belief  in  the  Spirit.  The  belief  and  the 
experience  acted  and  reacted  upon  each  other.  The 
explanation  which  was  ready  to  hand  furnished  a 
ground  of  expectation  for  more  phenomena,  and 
the  great  abundance  of  charismata  in  the  early 
Christian  church  followed. 

It  may  be  that  Paul's  conversion  is  to  be  put 
within  the  first  two  years  after  the  crucifixion. 
Whenever  it  was,  the  time  was  so  early  that  Paul 
came  into  the  Christian  church  while  its  concep- 
tions of  the  Spirit  were  in  the  formative  period. 
His  own  conceptions  followed,  for  a  time,  the  same 
direct  path.  As  we  have  seen,  he  shared  to  the  end 
in  all  the  ideas  of  the  Spirit  current  in  the  early 
church.  It  is  impossible  to  differentiate  between 
the  Jewish  basis  and  the  early  Christian  develop- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  except  to  say  that 
the  pneumatic  experiences  of  the  early  church  made 
a  vivid  present  reality  out  of  what  had  before  been 
a  dogma  of  memory  from  the  national  past  and  of 
hope  for  the  national  future.  There  is  every  reason 
to  suppose  that  Paul  was  largely  influenced  in  the 
form  of  his  beliefs  by  the  Christian  churches  with 
which  he  was  in  contact.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
several  years  of  intercourse  with  the  churches  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia  should  have  left  no  molding  im- 
press upon  the  structure  of  his  thought.    His  claim 

213 


The  Spirit  of  God 

of  independence  in  the  autobiographical  sections  of 
Galatians  does  not  imply  any  such  unnatural 
severance  from  the  influences  of  environment. 
That  claim  of  independence  has  to  do  with  the  origin 
of  his  "gospel,"  and  is  limited  to  his  conception  of 
the  method  of  salvation. 

But  Paul  did  not  depend  for  his  conception  of 
the  charismata  of  the  Spirit  simply  upon  Jewish 
tradition  and  the  experiences  of  his  fellow-Chris- 
tians. He  himself  was,  as  all  scholars  recognize, 
a  pneumatic  of  the  highest  degree.  To  the  Corin- 
thian church,  a  church  in  which  spiritual  gifts 
seem  to  have  been  somewhat  unusually  abundant,  he 
says,  "I  thank  my  God  that  I  speak  with  tongues 
more  than  you  all"  (i  Cor.  14.  18).  He  had 
visions  (2  Cor.  12.  1,  fT.).  The  ground  of  his 
Christianity  was  itself  a  revelation  (Gal.  1.  12). 
The  most  striking  and  popularly  valued  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  were  parts  of  his  own  experience.1 

Thus  far  Paul's  thought  followed  the -channels  of 
ordinary  early  Christian  ideas.  The  problem  of 
real  difficulty  comes  in  the  attempt  to  pass  from 
this  common  idea  over  to  the  conception  of  the  re- 
lation of  the  Spirit  to  the  personal  religious  life 

1The  psychology  of  religious  leaders  is  an  interesting  study.  Few  have 
been  without  visions  or  their  psychological  equivalents.  Nearly,  if  not 
quite  all,  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  come  into  this  category.  In  addition, 
one  may  mention  Zoroaster,  if  one  may  trust  not  merely  tradition,  but  the 
Gathas  (see  Yasna  XXIX);  Buddha,  whose  "enlightenment"  was  evidently 
of  the  nature  of  a  vision;  the  Hindu  philosophers,  in  whose  works  the 
terms  used  of  the  perception  of  the  truth  are  such  as  to  presuppose  a  kin- 
dred experience;  the  Yogis,  who  aimed  directly  at  the  production  of  such 
psychical  phenomena;  Mohammed,  whose  best  religious  utterances  were 
all  the  result  of  visions;  Philo  (seep.  io6,f.).  The  Christian  world  furnishes 
such  classic  examples  as  Francis  of  Assisi,  Bernard,  St.  Francis  Xavier, 
Loyola,  Luther,  Edwards,  Wesley,  in  all  of  whom  we  find  essentially  the 
same  psychological  phenomena  of  "visions  and  revelations"  which  Paul 
describes  in  2  Cor.  1 2  as  a  part  of  his  own  experience. 

214 


The  Pauline  Writings 

as  a  permanent  religious  force  rather  than  as  a 
temporary  charismatic  gift. 

Whenever  Paul  originates  new  theological  con- 
ceptions it  is  worthy  of  note  that  he  takes  his  point 
of  departure  from  what  he  conceives  to  be  the  cen- 
tral significance  of  the  subject  in  question.  Now, 
the  central  significance  of  the  Spirit  in  Christian 
thought  lay  in  its  relation  to  the  development  of  the 
Messianic  mission.  It  furthered  this  development 
in  three  ways:  first,  by  its  witness  to  the  believer 
that  God  had  approved  his  service;  second,  by  the 
direct  guidance  of  particular  plans  or  lines  of  labor 
which  the  church  or  its  members  undertook;  third, 
by  the  witness  to  Christianity  which  unusual  and 
peculiar  phenomena  not  humanly  explicable  offered 
before  the  non-Christian  communities. 

When  the  question  was  raised  of  what  events  in 
the  religious  life  could  be  interpreted  as  proceeding 
from  the  Spirit  two  possible  tests  could  be  applied : 
One  was  the  test  which  Judaism  had  never  passed 
beyond,  that  simply  of  the  unusual  and  extraor- 
dinary. Whatever  in  the  life  lay  outside  the  usual 
and  normal  belonged  to  the  activity  of  the  Spirit. 
This  test  seemed  very  obvious.  It  made  its  spec- 
tacular appeal.  It  was  in  accord  with  the  only  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit's  work  which  the  early  church 
had  brought  over  from  Judaism,  and  for  some  time 
it  seems  to  have  been  the  only  test  that  the  churches 
consciously  applied.  But  it  had  about  it  an  uncer- 
tain penumbra.  Other  spirits  besides  the  Spirit  of 
God  might  produce  like  results ;  nor  was  it  always 

215 


The  Spirit  of  God 

possible,  as  in  the  case  of  the  maid  at  Philippi 
(Acts  1 6.  1 6- 1 8),  to  precipitate  a  direct  conflict  of 
strength  between  the  spirits.  It  was  also  external. 
There  was  something  profounder,  something  more 
in  accord  with  the  emphasis  which  Christ  laid  upon 
the  internal  rather  than  the  external.  This  was 
brought  to  light  in  the  second  test,  that  of  value 
and  result.  To  this  test  we  find  Paul  passing.  Any 
event  or  experience  which  served  to  further  the 
interests  of  the  Messianic  movement  might  prop- 
erly be  explained  by  the  Spirit,  even  though  it  were 
not  unusual  nor  extraordinary.  The  entire  discus- 
sion of  gifts  of  the  Spirit  in  I  Cor.  12  to  14,  with  its 
emphasis  on  the  various  values  of  the  gifts,  its  in- 
sistence upon  ranking  these  gifts  according  to  their 
use  in  edification,  shows  a  complete  abandonment 
of  the  old  Jewish  test  and  a  definite  acceptance  of 
a  ground  which,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  new  among 
the  Christian  churches. 

The  application  of  such  a  test,  however,  made  a 
further  departure  from  the  older  application  of  the 
Spirit  to  the  range  of  experience.  It  made  the  gifts 
of  teaching  or  of  administration  or  of  any  other 
things  by  which  the  church  might  profit  part  of 
the  spiritual  charismata,  standing  by  the  side  of 
the  charismata  of  prophecy  and  the  glossolalia.  and 
claiming  equal  rank  and  dignity  with  them. 

But  among  all  these  elements  of  the  Christian  life 
what  was  of  the  highest  value?  Not  external  gifts, 
however  important  they  might  be  for  the  churches, 
but  the  religious  life,  with  its  outcome  in  the  ethical 

216 


The  Pauline  Writings 

life.  This  formed  the  center  of  the  Christian  life; 
this  connected  that  life  most  closely  with  the  life 
of  God.  As  Paul  labored  in  the  Gentile  world  this 
sanctity  of  life  came  to  be  seen  ever  more  clearly 
to  be  the  most  important  element  that  Christianity 
had  to  present.  It  meant  the  most  for  the  advance 
of  the  Messianic  movement.  It,  too,  then,  must  be 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit. 

It  may  be  that  with  this  argument  from  the  test 
of  value  must  be  coupled,  as  usually  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit,  an  argument  from 
experience.  Paul  had  himself  struggled  for  holi- 
ness of  life.  His  struggle  had  seemed  hopeless,  un-  / 
til  he  had  found  help  in  the  faith  of  Christ.  Rom. 
7  tells  the  story.  We  can  hardly  suppose  that  the 
help  to  holiness  of  life  came  without  a  sense  of 
emotion.  Victory  in  a  long-fought  mental  battle, 
as  both  psychology  and  common  experience  tell  us, 
always  comes  with  emotion.  To  Paul  this  emotion 
must  have  seemed  akin  to  that  which  accompanied 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Both  reason  and  experience, 
then,  united  in  urging  Paul  to  bring  the  religious 
and  ethical  life  into  the  sphere  of  the  action  of  the 
Spirit. 

Thus  we  may  account  for  the  religious  use  of  the 
Spirit.  How  did  he  come  to  use  the  Spirit  also  as 
the  divine  force  in  the  origin  of  the  Christian  life? 
Several  elements  may  be  discerned  here.  One  is 
the  mere  logical  inference  from  the  Spirit  as  the 
source  of  the  religious  life.  If  from  the  time  of  its 
inception  the  Spirit  has  been  the  controlling  divine 

217 


The  Spirit  of  God 

power  of  this  life,  must  not  the  Spirit  also  be  the 
source  of  its  beginning?  The  religious  and  moral 
life  is  not  a  temporary  endowment,  to  come  and  go 
at  will;  it  is  a  permanent  possession.  If  its  mani- 
festation is  of  the  Spirit,  its  origin  must  also  be  of 
the  Spirit. 

One  may  well  suppose  that  Paul's  procedure  was 
not  by  means  of  the  conquest  of  territory  step  by 
step.  His  system  of  thought  was  never  a  bill  of 
particulars,  constructed  inductively  from  details. 
It  was  rather  a  deductive  construction.  Thus  his 
conception  of  Christ  is  not  a  conclusion  from  the 
details  of  the  life  of  Christ,  but  a  deduction  from 
the  principle  of  his  Messiahship.  It  is  probable 
that  his  conception  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  was 
also  deductive.  The  principle  was  that  of  the  unity 
of  the  Christian  life.  The  life  as  a  whole  makes  its 
appeal  for  Christianity.  It  cannot  be  divided  in 
its  witness.  Now,  that  which  constitutes  the  cen- 
tral fact  of  a  life  cannot  be  mere  endowment,  given 
from  without,  to  come  and  to  go  at  the  command 
of  an  external  will;  it  must  be  the  principle  of  life 
itself.  Here  is  psychological  insight.  But  Paul's 
psychology  is  not  a  matter  of  inference  and  cer- 
tainly not  of  philosophy,  but  of  his  own  personal 
experience.  Unity  of  life  as  a  matter  of  experience 
means  an  absorbing  intensity  of  interest  in  one 
thing,  the  domination  of  life  by  one  idea.  It  means 
a  concentration  of  purpose  and  attention  which  can 
only  take  place  in  intense  natures.  A  nature,  how- 
ever, in  which  this  is  possible  is  of  necessity  strongly 

218 


The  Pauline  Writings 

emotional,  and  the  unification  of  life  in  experience 
is  of  necessity  linked  with  emotional  experiences. 
Thus  it  was  with  Paul.  His  own  life  was  caught 
up  and  absorbed  in  the  thought  of  the  revelation  of 
God  through  Christ.  That  had  made  life  new  for 
him.  He  was  in  his  own  consciousness  a  "new  cre- 
ation." Tides  of  strong  emotion  that  could  only 
come  from  God  had  set  through  his  soul  and  turned 
its  channels  in  new  directions.  They  were  tempo- 
rary prophetic  ecstasies,  but  back  of  them  there  was 
an  abiding  force  which  not  only  made  his  life  new, 
but  was  itself  that  new  life,  living  itself  out  in  his 
life.  A  man  of  less  intense  experience  might  have 
balanced  the  elements  of  this  life — so  much  divine,  so 
much  human.  Paul  could  not  do  this.  The  life  was 
too  much  of  a  unit  for  that,  and  his  sense  of  God  in 
it  was  too  large.  It  could  not  be  divided,  except 
so  far  as  elements  of  temptation  and  sin  showed 
that  "the  old  man"  still  persisted.  The  new  life, 
the  life  in  Christ,  was  also  the  life  in  the  Spirit.  It 
was  all  the  manifestation  of  God.  So  out  of  the 
intensity  and  strength  of  his  emotions  there  came  a 
new  step  in  the  psychological  interpretation  of  the 
revelation  of  God  to  man. 

In  some  such  way  as  this  we  may  venture  to 
suppose  the  rich  religious  experience  of  Paul 
wrought  with  the  logical  processes  of  his  mind  to 
bring  about  his  new  conception  of  the  range  of  the 
Spirit's  working  in  the  life  of  man.  It  grew  directly 
out  of  the  older  conceptions.  It  is  evident  that 
Paul  did  not  regard  it  as  contradictory  to  these 

219 


The  Spirit  of  God 

older  ideas,  for  he  held  the  two  together;  nor,  if 
the  above  account  of  its  origin  is  in  any  measure 
correct,  was  there  any  contradiction  between  them. 
The  new  idea  was  only  more  comprehensive,  and  it 
easily  replaced  the  older  idea  by  a  more  stable  and 
a  more  satisfactory  conception ;  but  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  for  Paul  it  had  the  great  signifi- 
cance of  a  new  and  radical  departure  which  it  has 
for  us. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  expression  of  the 
life  of  the  Spirit  we  find  it  passing  beyond  the  mere 
range  of  witness,  though  that  is  never  entirely  ab- 
sent, into  the  range  of  ethical  life  for  its  own  sake. 
Two  thoughts  combine  to  produce  this  result:  that 
the  Messianic  kingdom  is  a  holy  kingdom,  and  that 
the  Spirit  is  a  holy  Spirit.  Both  these  belong  to 
Jewish  theology,  but  now  for  the  first  time  they 
could  come  to  ethical  realization.  They  had  both 
been  ancient  prophetic  thoughts  which  might,  had 
prophecy  advanced  to  its  natural  end  undisturbed 
by  either  priestly  or  nationalistic  developments, 
have  come  by  the  natural  processes  of  growth  to 
Paul's  ethical  position. 

When,  however,  the  priesthood  placed  its  cere- 
monial definition  of  holiness  by  the  side  of  the 
prophet's  ethical  definition  emphasis  began  to  be 
unduly  placed  on  the  priestly  side.  This  was  natu- 
ral. Usually  in  ancient  religions  the  ceremonial 
overcame  the  ethical  when  the  two  were  placed  in 
competition.  Perhaps,  however,  it  would  be  more 
true  to  say  that  the  mass  of  men  were  unable  to 

220 


The  Pauline  Writings 

draw  a  distinction  between  them,  and  that  the 
priests  themselves,  by  the  very  tendencies  which 
produced  a  priesthood,  were  of  necessity  blind  lead- 
ers of  the  blind.  The  very  essence  of  the  priestly 
tendency  is  the  obscuration  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween ethics  and  ceremonial.  Wherever  that  dis- 
tinction has  not  yet  arisen  in  a  religion  the  priest- 
hood is  in  the  line  of  natural  religious  progress. 
After  it  has  arisen  and  ethical  ideas  have  been 
clearly  and  distinctly  set  forth,  as  they  had  been 
in  Israel  by  the  prophets,  the  rise  of  a  priesthood 
to  prominence  is  inevitably  a  religious  retrogres- 
sion. There  are  many  cases,  as  that  of  Israel  itself, 
where  history  may  justify  it  as  seemingly  necessary 
for  the  building  of  a  shell  so  hard  that  it  can  pro- 
tect the  life  within  from  external  assault,  but  it  is 
religious  retrogression  notwithstanding. 

The  prophets  had  suggested  an  ethical  interpre- 
tation of  all  the  life.  The  priests  had  inhibited  its 
growth,  and  the  power  of  priestly  ideas  must  be 
broken  through  before  it  could  become  a  fruitful 
religious  principle.  Paul  had  to  do  what  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jewish  prophets  should  have  been  able  to 
do  several  hundred  years  before.  Not  that  ethical 
ideas  had  been  entirely  lost.  They  still  formed  the 
comfort  of  many  religious  souls  and  inspired  psalm 
and  prayer  in  those  who  humbly  "waited  for  the 
redemption  of  Israel."  Without  them  Paul  himself 
would  never  have  attained  his  freedom  from  Phar- 
iseeism.  But  in  general  they  had  been  overgrown 
by  a  rank  bramble  of  priestly  notions. 

221 


The  Spirit  of  God 

If  this  seems  too  harsh  a  judgment  on  the  Jewish 
priesthood,  we  may  remind  ourselves  that  other  re- 
ligions compel  us  to  make  the  same  estimate  of  the 
priest  as,  after  a  certain  period  in  religious  growth, 
a  religious  disaster.  The  Gathas  bear  evidence  of 
an  ethical  phase  of  thought  in  the  growth  of  Zoro- 
astrianism.  When,  however,  Magism  intervened 
and  purity  was  conceived  of  as  having  to  do  with 
earth  and  fire  rather  than  with  character,  then 
Zoroastrianism  developed  into  a  burdensome  ritual, 
a  hard,  merciless,  persecuting  religion,  only  able  to 
sustain  itself  because,  like  Judaism,  it  had  linked 
to  itself  the  natural  loyalty  of  nationalism. 

Not  less  is  the  principle  illustrated  by  the  con- 
flict of  the  ages  which  has  been  waged  in  Hinduism 
between  ethics  and  the  priesthood.  Hindu  panthe- 
ism, combined  with  what  seems  almost  a  racial 
genius  for  assimilation  and  syncretism,  obscures 
the  conflict,  but  it  is  still  there.  The  result,  as 
usual,  has  been  for  the  vast  mass  of  its  people  the 
complete  obliteration  of  the  ethical  element  of  its 
philosophy  by  the  priestly  doctrine  of  caste  and 
sacrifice.  The  persistence  of  the  ethical  still  con- 
tinues to  manifest  itself  in  such  movements  as  the 
Somajes  and  in  many  humbler  and  more  individual 
efforts  to  find  and  to  do  the  right.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  go  so  far  from  home  except  to  show  how 
widely  this  same  law  works.  The  Christian  church 
has  in  all  ages  furnished  only  too  many  illustrations 
of  the  power  of  ceremonial  religion  to  inhibit  ethical 
growth. 

222 


The  Pauline  Writings 

In  Israel  a  nationalism,  which,  like  the  priesthood, 
is  a  normal  element  of  an  earlier  period  of  growth, 
combined  with  priestly  domination  to  still  further 
hinder  ethical  growth.  Judaism  never  wholly  rec- 
onciled the  legal,  the  national,  and  the  ethical 
elements  of  its  religious  inheritance,  but  beyond 
doubt  the  ethical  ideas  of  the  Spirit  which  Paul 
developed  might  have  appeared  much  earlier  had 
prophetism  not  been  partially  overthrown  by  the 
persistence  and  the  dominance  of  these  other  incon- 
gruous elements.  It  was  not  that  the  Spirit  and  the 
Messianic  kingdom  were  not  recognized  as  holy, 
but  that,  as  always,  priesthood  and  nationalism  had 
forced  upon  the  people  their  own  unethical,  magical 
definitions  of  holiness. 

Now  at  last  we  have  a  clear  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion which  we  have  raised  at  various  former  stages 
of  our  study:  Is  the  Spirit  a  permanent  element  of 
character  or  a  temporary  endowment?  So  long  as 
it  was  an  endowment  at  all  the  question  was  always 
debatable.  In  most  cases  it  was  temporary.  In  the 
primitive  Christian  church  that  was  probably  always 
the  fact.  In  other  cases  it  has  seemed  more  diffi- 
cult to  come  to  a  decision,  yet  the  presumption  must 
always  be  in  favor  of  the  interpretation  of  it  as 
a  temporary  endowment,  except  where  Pauline 
thought  has  itself  modified  the  earlier  conception. 

This  is  not  true  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  Spirit. 
The  ethical  foundation  of  character  is  not  an  en- 
dowment; it  is  an  essential  element  of  the  person. 
This  psychological  truth  Paul  attempts  to  express 

223 


The  Spirit  of  God 

in  his  "mystic  realism"  of  the  life  "in  the  Spirit" 
or  "in  Christ,"  for  since  Christ  and  the  Spirit  are 
both  expressions  of  God's  relation  to  man,  they  are 
used  in  this  sense  interchangeably. 

In  former  sections  questions  of  ontology  have 
not  been  raised.  The  Hebrews  did  not  discuss  the 
problem  of  the  ultimate  nature  of  God,  man,  or 
the  world,  and  it  is  fruitless  for  us  to  attempt  to 
define  their  thought  when  they  left  it  undefined. 
All  that  we  have  been  able  to  say  was  that  the  Spirit 
was  God  working,  without  attempting  a  sharper 
distinction.  In  the  consideration  of  Pauline 
thought,  however,  the  question  arises  whether  we 
may  not  at  last  try  to  define  the  nature  of  the  Spirit. 
Here  is  where  speculative  theology  has  found  its 
main  biblical  basis  for  doctrines  of  the  nature  of 
the  Spirit,  and  here,  if  anywhere,  we  shall  find  such 
a  doctrine. 

The  nature  of  the  Spirit  admits  of  discussion 
under  the  following  divisions:  i.  The  Spirit  as  a 
"heavenly  substance;"  2.  The  relation  of  the  Spirit 
to  God ;  3.  The  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  Christ. 

I.  That  the  Spirit  represents  a  sort  of  substance 
is  held  by  Holsten  and  Pfleiderer.1  The  latter 
argues  that  the  use  of  speech  in  the  term  "a  spir- 
itual body"  (1  Cor.  15.  44)  implies  a  spiritual  ma- 
terial. Gunkel  (page  59)  compares  the  "psychical 
body."  As  the  body  is  the  natural  organ  of  the 
soul,  so  the  spiritual  body  is  the  natural  organ  of 
the  spirit,  but  that  does  not  imply  that  the  spirit 

^See  Gloel,  Der  Heilige  Geist,  p.  372. 
224 


The  Pauline  Writings 

is  a  substance.  The  meaning  of  "spiritual"  here  is 
seen  by  comparing  other  cases  where  the  adjective 
is  used:  Rom.  15.  27,  the  Gentiles  partake  of  the 
spiritual  things  of  Jewish  churches  (so  1  Cor.  9. 
11;  10.  3,  4);  1  Cor.  15.  44-47,  a  spiritual  body; 
Eph.  1.  3,  spiritual  blessings;  5.  19,  spiritual 
songs;  6.  12,  spiritual  hosts;  Col.  I.  9,  spiritual 
wisdom.  The  adjective  describes  that  which  the 
Spirit  produces  or  uses  for  the  advancement  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom.  It  keeps  Paul's  test  in  view. 
It  is  said  that  ancient  thought  could  not  conceive 
of  a  thoroughly  immaterial  substance — that  a  being 
of  any  sort  was  placed  by  the  necessities  of  their 
thought  under  the  category  of  "stoff"  It  may  be. 
Certainly  one  cannot  prove  that  it  is  not  so.  Then 
one  may  speculate  about  the  Spirit  as  being  an  ethe- 
real substance,  like  air  or  fire.  But  all  this  can 
only  be  speculation,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  writers  in  question  ever  made  any  such  onto- 
logical  distinctions  as  these  theories  would  credit 
them  with.  Hebrew  writings  deal  with  phenomena  I  r 
rather  than  with  substance. 

2.  Is  the  Spirit  God  himself?  Up  to  this  point 
in  our  study  the  Spirit  has  everywhere  been  God 
considered  as  active  in  the  world.  The  distinction 
between  Spirit  and  God  has  been  a  distinction  of 
function  rather  than  of  substance.  Traditional  the- 
ology has  maintained  that,  at  least  in  the  writings 
of  Paul,  the  distinction  becomes  one  of  substance. 

It  must  be  granted  that  Paul,  like  the  other  early 
Christians,  takes  his  idea  of  the  Spirit  from  a  sys- 
(15)  225 


The  Spirit  of  God 

tern  of  thought  in  which  a  difference  between  God 
and  the  Spirit  could  of  necessity  be  only  functional. 
The  monotheism  of  the  Jews  forbade  the  distinction 
of  persons  in  the  Divine  Being.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  primitive  Christian  churches  had  as  yet  any 
idea  on  this  subject  different  from  their  Jewish  heri- 
tage. It  may  be  fairly  claimed,  however,  that  with 
the  originality  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  function 
of  the  Spirit  a  new  conception  of  its  ontology  might 
possibly  arise. 

Paul's  use  of  the  Spirit  presents  the  following 
phenomena  as  concerns  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to 
,  God :  ( i )  Paul  ascribes  the  same  results  to  God  and 
to  the  Spirit  (Rom.  15.  16;  1  Thess.  5.  23).  (2)  An 
analogy  is  drawn  between  the  spirit  of  a  man  and 
the  Spirit  of  God  (1  Cor.  2.  11).  The  Spirit  of 
God  sustains  the  same  relation  to  his  personality 
that  the  spirit  of  a  man  does  to  his.  (3)  The  func- 
tions of  God  are  assigned  to  the  Spirit. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  Paul's  position  is  that 
the  Spirit  is  God.  This,  indeed,  is  the  statement  of 
the  creeds,  but  the  creeds  distinguish  between  the 
Spirit  and  God.  Now,  Paul  distinguishes  between 
them  also,  only  in  a  different  way.  The  creeds 
make  an  ontological  distinction ;  there  is  a  difference 
ab  intra  between  them.  Paul  makes  a  difference, 
not  ab  intra,  but  ex  officio,  between  them.  Paul 
uses  the  Spirit  for  God  conceived  as  energizing  in 
a  certain  way;  but  God  thus  energizing  is  not  lim- 
ited to  this  term,  for  Paul  is  free  to  use  the  term 
"God"  itself  for  the  same  divine  activity.     That 

226 


The  Pauline  Writings 

is,  the  Spirit  and  God  are  not  mutually  exclusive. 
The  Spirit  did  not  mean  one  thing  and  God  another. 
The  inclusive  term  was  "God."  The  Spirit  might 
be  used  for  a  special  way  of  divine  energizing  or  it 
might  not.  That  was  immaterial.  The  essential 
thing  was  the  realization  that  the  Spirit's  working 
was  the  actual  moving  of  God  upon  the  heart.  God, 
not  the  Spirit,  was  the  ultimate  thought. 

This  disposes  of  the  question  of  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit.  Certainly  it  was  personal,  for  God  is 
personal.  It  was  personal,  as  a  man  actively  influ- 
encing his  friend  is  personal.  Confessedly  this  in- 
terpretation of  personality  is  not  that  of  the  creeds. 
The  question  is  if  it  is  that  of  Paul.  Even  if  it 
is,  that  does  not  of  necessity  condemn  the  creeds. 
Paul's  thought  may  not  be  final.  It  may  be  a  stage 
on  the  road  by  which  logic  is  advancing,  and  a 
stage  at  which  it  is  impossible  to  rest.  But  at  least 
as  interpreters  we  must  not  try  to  read  the  results 
of  later  Greek  speculations  on  the  Trinity  back  into 
the  simplicity  of  his  Jewish  thought.  And  as 
Christian  thinkers  we  should  not  set  up,  as  a  test 
of  Christianity,  a  belief  which  arose  after  his  day, 
even  if  we  ourselves,  along  with  the  historic  church, 
believe  it  to  be  the  logical  outcome  of  his  thought. 
Orthodoxy  can  hardly  draw  lines  which  will  shut 
out  its  own  great  theological  protagonist,  and  with 
him  the  entire  early  church.1 

1  One  must  protest  against  the  rather  common  assumption  that  if  an 
exegete  does  not  find  the  modern  sharp  theological  distinctions  in  a  biblical 
writer,  it  is  because  of  his  dullness.  The  philosopher  makes  no  correspond- 
ing demand  in  the  interpretation  of  Plato,  nor  the  student  of  religion  in 
the  interpretation  of  the  Vedic  hymns.     We  cannot  too  often  repeat  that 

22J 


The  Spirit  of  God 

3.  What  is  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  and  Christ? 
The  relation  of  God  and  the  Spirit  is  not  one  diffi- 
cult to  understand.  We  have  the  entire  history  and 
literature  of  the  Jewish  nation  to  aid  us,  as  well  as 
innumerable  analogies  from  other  religions.  Not 
so  with  the  relation  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit.  This 
has  no  parallel  elsewhere.  It  was  a  problem  new 
to  the  Christian  church.  It  had  inherently  several 
possible  solutions.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  know  just 
what  the  tendencies  of  the  primitive  church  regard- 
ing it  were. 

So  far  as  those  parts  of  Acts  which  reflect  the 
early  church  give  us  any  information,  Christ  was 
the  recipient  of  the  Spirit  as  a  charismatic  gift  (10. 
38). 1  The  connection  of  this  gift  with  the  Mes- 
sianic office  is  indicated  by  the  verb  "anointed" 
(exQiaev),  a  term  rarely  used  of  the  believers.  The 
Messiah  received  the  Spirit  by  his  Messianic  office, 
and  thus  far  is  unique,  but  there  is  nothing  to  show 
that  the  primitive  Christians  thought  of  Christ  as 
standing  in  any  different  ontological  relation  to 
the  Spirit  from  other  men.  The  idea  is  dominated 
by  the  conception  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  God. 
So  long  as  that  was  the  relation  only  of  the  Jewish 

the  distinctions  which  are  the  outcome  of  long  courses  of  growing  thought 
cannot  be  expected  to  appear  in  writings  that  have  not  inherited  this 
elaborate  discrimination.  The  demand  for  it  belongs  to  the  stage  of  scien- 
tific reasoning  which  adopted  the  "box -in -box"  theory  in  biology,  and 
thought  of  the  oak  with  all  its  branches  and  twigs  as  literally  embodied 
in  the  acorn;  of  the  whole  human  race  in  all  its  history  as  actually  existing 
in  miniature  in  the  first  human  embryo.  We  have  laid  aside  such  specu- 
lations in  physical  science.  It  is  as  scientific  to  recognize  the  amorphous 
condition — vagueness,  we  call  it  in  thought — where  it  really  exists  as  it 
is  to  recognize  definitely  organized  structure  where  that  is  found. 

1Acts  1.  2,  Christ  "had  given  commandment  through  the  Holy  Spirit" 
is  probably  editorial  matter  rather  than  part  of  the  Aramaic  source.  It 
belongs  to  the  condensed  summary  by  which  the  author  has  joined  his 
dedication  of  the  book  to  the  history  found  in  his  sources. 

228 


The  Pauline  Writings 

Messiah  the  Spirit  could  only  be  the  traditional 
charismatic  presence  of  God  in  the  Messiah.  How- 
ever much  the  effect  of  that  presence  may  differ 
from  the  traditional  conception  of  what  its  effect 
would  be  or  from  what  its  effect  actually  was  in  other 
men,  the  relation  itself  is  not  thereby  made  different 
in  kind.  There  is  nothing  that  leads  us  to  suppose 
that  the  conception  of  this  relation  had  reached  any 
point  of  change  in  the  pre-Pauline  church. 

One  comes,  then,  untrammeled  to  the  Pauline 
writings.  The  facts  regarding  Paul's  usage  are  as 
follows : 

1.  The  Spirit  and  Christ  are  identified  directly  in 
activity  (2  Cor.  3.  17,  18).  Paul  has  said  that  if 
the  ministration  of  the  letter  which  came  through 
Moses  was  with  glory,  much  more  must  the  min- 
istration of  the  Spirit  be  with  glory.  This  minis- 
tration of  the  Spirit  is  the  ministration  of  the  Lord. 
So  far  as  the  ministration  is  concerned  "the  Lord" 
and  "the  Spirit"  are  coequal  terms.  It  is  to  be 
remembered,  however,  that  the  whole  range  of 
thought  in  this  passage  lies  in  the  sphere  not  of 
substance,  but  of  operation  (comp.  Rom.  8.  2,  "The 
law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Jesus  Christ,"  and  8.  9). 

2.  Indirectly  as  well  as  directly  the  working  of 
the  Spirit  and  of  Christ  are  identified,  as  in  Gal.  4. 
6.  Rom.  8.  9-1 1  identifies  the  life  of  Christ  in 
the  Christian  with  that  of  the  Spirit  in  him.1  The 
Christian  life  may  be  spoken  of  as  a  life  "in  Christ" 

^enio  (The  Supreme  Leader,  p.  50)  says  of  this  passage,  "There  is  union 
in  the  being  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  their  works  as  well," 
but  the  passage  makes  no  statement  regarding  being.  The  thought  lies 
in  the  dynamic,  not  in  the  static,  sphere. 

229 


The  Spirit  of  God 

or  "in  the  Spirit."  Both  Spirit  and  Christ  are  con- 
nected with  the  life  (comp.  Col.  3.  4  with  Gal.  5.  25). 
V/}  3.  The  Spirit  is  "of  Christ"  (Rom.  8.  9).  This, 
however,  is  true  because  the  Spirit  is  the  energiz- 
ing of  God  for  the  development  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom. 

4.  This  identification  of  working  is  not  absolute. 
Paul  often  distinguishes  the  two.  It  is  only  loosely 
that  the  two  can  be  said  equally  to  "reveal  God." 
Christ  is  the  objective  revelation  of  God,  but  this 
objective  revelation  is  made  effective  in  the  heart 
through  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Faith  is 
in  Christ,  not  in  the  Spirit  (Gal.  2.  20).  Grace  is 
from  God,  shown  through  Christ  (Gal.  2.  21).  The 
Spirit  is  the  gift  of  God  to  develop  this  faith,  to  open 
the  heart  to  the  apprehension  of  this  grace  (Gal.  4. 
6;  5.  5).  All  are  combining  for  one  result,  but 
their  identity  is  not  absolute.  God  is  the  ground 
of  all  spiritual  influences.  Christ  is  the  objective 
exhibition  of  the  love  and  purpose  of  God.  The 
Spirit  is  the  sum  of  all  divine  influences  acting  upon 
man  to  make  effective  this  revelation  in  the  life  of 
man.  It  is  this  life  which  is,  so  far  as  man  is  con- 
cerned, the  object  of  all  these  operations.  One  may, 
then,  when  speaking  in  terms  of  this  life,  speak  of 
God,  of  Christ,  or  of  the  Spirit  as  its  source.  The 
Christian  life  may  with  equal  propriety  be  said  to 
be  in  God  or  in  Christ  or  in  the  Spirit.  But  that 
by  no  means  argues  that  each  is  conceived  to  be  of 
the  same  substance  with  the  other. 

At  the  same  time  it  would  be  equally  wrong  to 
230 


The  Pauline  Writings 

make  a  metaphysical  separation  between  God  acting 
and  God  as  the  source  of  action,  and  not  less  wrong 
to  make  such  a  metaphysical  separation  between 
God  revealing  himself  through  Christ  and  that 
divine  action  on  the  heart  of  man  which  gives  him 
power  to  grasp  for  himself  and  to  exhibit  to  others 
this  divine  revelation.  The  Spirit  is  wider  than 
the  influence  of  the  personal  Jesus  Christ ;  although, 
following  Jewish  limitations  of  thought,  Paul  con- 
fines it  to  the  Messianic  plan  of  God,  and  so  finds 
room  for  the  Old  Testament  inspiration.  It  is  not 
simply  the  risen  Christ,  but  it  includes  the  sum  total 
of  influences  which  come  from  him  and  from  the 
historic  purposes  of  God  which  prepared  for  him. 
For  Paul  it  includes  only  these. 

5.  In  no  case  is  the  question  of  the  identity  of 
essence  in  Christ  and  the  Spirit  touched  upon.  The 
entire  thought  lies  within  the  range  of  activity 
rather  than  of  essence ;  of  function,  not  of  substance. 
If  one  choose  to  proceed  to  an  identification  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  "personality  in  which  God  was  in- 
carnated and  through  which  the  Spirit  was  mani- 
fested,"  as  does  Walker,  in  The  Spirit  and  the  In- 
carnation, that  is  perfectly  legitimate  as  a  Christian 
speculation,  but  it  is  not  biblical  theology.  Paul 
does  not  raise  the  problem  of  a  metaphysical  Trin- 
ity; nor,  whatever  we  may  feel  compelled  to  do  as 
the  logical  result  of  his  expressions,  is  there  any 
evidence  that  he  himself  was  consciously  nearer  to 
it  than  were  the  Jewish  Christians  in  the  first  decade 
after  the  death  of  Christ. 

231 


^ 


The  Spirit  of  God 

The  entire  problem  of  the  ontology  of  the  Spirit 
remains  to  the  last  where  it  stood  at  the  first.  On 
this  point  Paul  has  not  advanced  one  step  beyond 
the  most  primitive  Hebrew  ideas.  The  Spirit  had 
always  been  God  himself,  therefore  always  personal ; 
but  it  had  always  been,  and  was  still,  God  dynamic 
and  not  God  static — God  in  manifestation,  not  God 
in  essence.  What  Paul  would  have  done  with  this 
idea  had  he  been  a  Greek,  or  even  an  Alexandrian 
Jew,  does  not  concern  biblical  theology.  Whether 
the  inferences  drawn  by  theologians  trained  in 
Greek  thought  from  the  postulates  of  his  positions 
were  correct  or  not  is  also  a  question  with  which 
biblical  theology  does  not  concern  itself.  Paul  was 
a  Jew,  and  his  thought  clothed  itself  in  Jewish  form. 
y\  It  was  not  speculative,  but  practical,  and  dealt  with 
religion  rather  than  with  metaphysics.  Thus  it  was 
made  a  power  in  the  ethical  life,  and  Christianity 
was  saved,  even  when  placed  under  the  influence  of 
Greek  speculative  thought,  from  the  fate  which 
overtook  both  Greek  and  Hindu  philosophical  re- 
ligion, of  transferring  salvation  from  a  matter  of 
character  to  a  matter  of  knowledge. 

232 


CHAPTER  V 

The  Johannean  Writings 

In  the  synoptic  gospels  we  treated  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  and  the  synoptic  narrative  in  different  sec- 
tions. In  the  fourth  gospel  that  method  is  not  avail- 
able. The  Johannean  author  has  so  assimilated 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  in  both  style  and  content,  with 
his  own  theological  thought  that  no  mere  mechan- 
ical separation  between  the  sections  of  Christ's 
discourses  and  the  gospel  narratives  will  serve  to 
distinguish  between  the  thought  of  Jesus  and  that 
of  the  author.  The  gospel  must  be  first  treated  as 
a  whole.  Then  we  may  properly  raise  the  critical 
problem,  which  in  any  case  stands  still  in  the  back- 
ground, whether  we  can  distinguish  in  the  thought 
of  the  Johannean  author  any  definite  factors  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  The  question  will  arise  in  the 
form  of  the  problem  of  Johannean  origins,  How  far 
are  the  peculiar  elements  of  the  Johannean  doctrine 
based  on  the  teaching  of  Jesus?  With  the  gospel 
the  epistles  of  John  may  be  coupled.  It  is  certain 
that  they  proceed  from  the  same  source  and  repre- 
sent the  same  system  of  thought. 

In  the  former  classifications  we  have  distin- 
guished the  Spirit  when  used  to  represent  God 
acting  upon  individuals  from  the  Spirit  when  it 
represents  God  acting  upon  classes  of  persons,  like 
the  Jewish  community  in  the  Messianic  time  or  the 

233 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Christian  church.  Both  uses  are  charismatic,  but 
only  the  first  is  original,  the  other  being  a  secondary 
development.  In  the  Johannean  literature,  how- 
ever, it  becomes  impossible  to  apply  this  distinction. 
The  Spirit  is  represented  as  given  to  individuals,  but 
not  to  individuals  as  distinguished  from  the  Chris- 
tian community.  Rather  is  the  gift  made  to  in- 
dividuals because  they  are  members  of  the  com- 
munity. The  gift  is  in  the  mind  of  the  author 
primarily  to  the  church,  and  is  only  individual  in 
that  the  recipient  of  an  individual  relation — and  the 
possession  of  the  Spirit  is  always  an  individual  re- 
lation— can  never  be  the  community  as  apart  from 
the  individuals  which  compose  it. 

The  divisions  which  have  been  classified  as  A 
and  B,  then,  here  fall  together  into  one.  If  we  use 
the  symbol  AB,  it  will  cause  no  confusion  and  will 
express  this  unification  of  meaning. 

AB.  The  charismatic  Spirit.  God  active  in  the 
Christian  church,  for  the  development  of  the  Mes- 
sianic community:  John  7.  39;  14.  17;  15.  26;  16. 
13;  20.  22;  1  John  3.  24;  4.  .-3. 

C.  The  Spirit  used  in  connection  with  Christ: 
John  1.  32,  33,  Spirit  at  baptism  of  Christ.  3.  34, 
"God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure"  (usually 
interpreted  of  Christ).  6.  63,  Christ's  "words  are 
Spirit." 

D.  The  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  Christian  life:  John 
3-  5,  6,  8.1 

JNo  cases  are  found  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings  or  of  the  Spirit  used  of  God  ab  intra.     "God  is  Spirit"  (4.  24)  is 

234 


The  Johannean  Writings 

If  we  compare  the  use  of  the  Spirit  here  with 
that  in  other  New  Testament  literature,  we  find  a 
difference  of  emphasis  rather  than  a  difference  of 
content.  In  the  general  field  of  Christian  ideas, 
with  its  common  background  of  Jewish  concept, 
certain  phases  of  the  Spirit  here  gain  promi- 
nence. Some  differences  of  use  occur,  but  mod- 
ify old  uses  rather  than  present  any  uses  which  are 
new. 

i.  The  most  notable  difference  is  the  total  dis- 
appearance of  the  use  of  the  Spirit  for  individual 
endowment  of  miraculous  charismatic  gifts.  Yet 
we  cannot  be  sure  that  this  difference  is  not  rather 
seeming  than  real.  The  Spirit  is  thought  of  as 
endowing  the  Christian  community,  which  means 
nothing  else  than  the  endowment  of  individual 
Christians.  If  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Spirit  in 
connection  with  prophecy,  vision,  wisdom,  or  other 
things  which  Jewish  and  early  Christian  thought 
commonly  explained  by  spiritual  influence,  it  is  be- 
cause there  are  no  instances  recorded  where  such 
interpretation  is  called  for.  The  one  case  of  proph- 
ecy which  the  Johannean  writings  narrate  is  that 
of  the  high  priest  Caiaphas  (n.  49).  A  Christian 
writer  to  whom  the  Spirit  had  come  to  be  intimately 
connected  with  devotion  to  the  sacred  memory  of 
his  Lord  might  well  hesitate  to  ascribe  this  prophecy 
to  the  Spirit,  even  while  recognizing  that  God  was 

an  affirmation  concerning  the  nature  of  God  as  affecting  the  method  of 
worship,  not  concerning  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  thought  of  the  passage  is 
that  God,  being  spiritual  rather  than  material,  must  be  approached  by  a 
worship  whose  content  is  spiritual  rather  than  material.  The  passage 
does  not  properly  fall  under  our  subject. 

235 


The  Spirit  of  God 

able  to  make  the  enemy  of  the  Messiah  utter  a  divine 
oracle.1 

2.  There  is  here  no  reference  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  the  word  of  the  Spirit.  This  difference  is 
probably  also  purely  incidental.  It  is  hardly  con- 
ceivable that  the  writer  did  not  hold  the  general 
Jewish  and  Christian  conception  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers  were  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit. 

3.  The  limitation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Messianic 
usage  is  the  same  as  in  other  Christian  writings. 

4.  The  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  the  basis  of 
physical  life  is  also  absent  here,  as  in  other  Christian 
literature. 

The  Johannean  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  with  all 
its  peculiarity,  is  less  remote  from  the  common 
Christian  teaching  than  it  seems  to  be  upon  first 
impression.  Its  beginning  is  the  ordinary  Christian 
Messianic  conception  of  the  Spirit.  The  relation  of 
the  Spirit  to  the  Messiah  himself  is  not  essentially 
different  from  that  in  the  synoptists  or  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Paul.  God  gives  the  Spirit  without  measure 
to  the  Messiah,  and  through  him  it  is  mediated  to 
the  disciples.  All  this  rests  ultimately  on  Jewish 
hopes  such  as  are  expressed  in  Joel  2.  28.  We  have 
seen  such  hopes  in  the  late  Jewish  and  early  Chris- 
tian literature.     The  function  of  the  Spirit  is  to 

1  Wendt  (Gospel  of  John,  p.  202,  f.,  Eng.  tr.)  regards  the  fact  that  there  is  in 
the  discourses  "no  forecasting  of  those  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit  which 
played  so  great  a  part  in  apostolic  and  sub -apostolic  Christianity"  as  an 
element  of  proof  that  the  source  from  which  they  were  taken  corresponds 
substantially  to  the  teaching  of  Christ.  He  regards  16.  13,  "He  will  show 
you  things  to  come,"  as  indicating  "prophetic  prevision"  and  belonging 
to  the  additions  of  the  editor  (p.  163).  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the 
words  may  not  be  a  promise  of  predictive  power,  but  of  spiritual  insight 
into  the  significance  01  "that  future  which  is  even  now  coming"  (see  West- 
cott  in  loco) 

236 


The  Johannean  Writings 

guide  the  disciples  in  their  witness  for  the  Messiah. 
Here  again  the  idea  differs  in  no  essential  respect 
from  that  of  the  synoptic  teaching  of  Christ,  or  from 
the  conceptions  expressed  by  Paul  or  other  Chris- 
tian writers,  on  the  same  subject.  The  Spirit  is 
confined,  in  its  direct  working,  to  the  Christian 
disciples.  Yet  God  designs  to  bring  the  whole  world 
to  himself.  The  Spirit  is  given  to  the  Christian, 
then,  not  for  his  own  behoof  or  delectation,  but  that 
he  may  the  better  bear  witness  for  Christ.  The 
Spirit  witnesses  to  him,  and  he  to  the  world;  and 
so  the  Spirit  works  upon  the  world. 

All  this  thought  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  exception 
of  3.  5-8,  starts  from  the  idea  of  charismatic1  gifts. 
It  has  its  historical  origin  in  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  prophecy  turned  to  New  Testament 
Messianic  uses.  In  one  respect,  however,  it  differs 
from  the  primitive  Christian  idea.  This  gift  of  the 
Spirit  is  not  special  and  temporary,  given  for  the 
needs  of  a  special  occasion  and  passing  away  when 
its  purpose  is  fulfilled;  it  is  an  abiding  gift.  Its 
value  is  for  the  permanent  structure  of  the  Christian 
life.  The  older  Jewish  connection  of  the  Spirit  with 
the  extraordinary  and  unusual  has  been  entirely 
displaced  by  its  connection  with  the  usual  and 
normal. 

In  this  respect  the  Johannean  position  takes  a 
step  beyond  that  of  Paul,  though  making  no  new- 
progress  in  thought.     Paul  regarded  the  Spirit  as 

1  The  reader  will  recall  that  this  word  means  any  divine  gift  for  a  special 
purpose,  and  is  not  limited  to  the  miraculous. 

237 


The  Spirit  of  God 

a  permanent  part  of  Christian  life,  but  he  also  held 
and  freely  expressed  the  older  Jewish  idea  of  the 
Spirit  as  an  occasional  charismatic  gift.  There 
was  no  express  contradiction  between  the  two,  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  was  no  attempt  to  unify 
them.  The  Johannean  position  drops  the  older  side 
altogether,  and  only  keeps  the  newer.  All  this  makes 
an  harmonious  picture.  It  is  not  quite  that  of  the 
primitive  Christian  thought;  it  is  not  quite  that  of 
the  Pauline  thought;  but  it  is  self-consistent  and 
perfectly  explicable  from  the  trend  of  early  Chris- 
tian conceptions.  At  one  point,  however,  the  Johan- 
nean literature  is  brought  into  still  closer  relation  to 
the  Pauline.  The  peculiarity  of  Pauline  thought  is 
its  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  not  only  the  abiding 
power,  but  the  source,  of  the  Christian  life.  In 
one  passage  the  Johannean  gospel  takes  the  same 
view.  John  3.  5-8  can  be  explained  only  as  ex- 
pressing the  idea  that  the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  the 
Christian  life.  Instead  of  coming  only  after  the 
departure  of  Jesus,  as  in  16.  7,  the  Spirit  is  present 
then  or  at  any  time  when  any  soul  enters  "eternal 
life."  It  is  not  impossible  that  the  form  of  expres- 
sion, "water  and  the  Spirit,"  may  be  suggested  by 
John's  promise  of  the  Messiah's  baptism  by  the 
Spirit  (Beyschlag,  I,  283).  The  idea  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  source  of  Christian  life,  however,  does  not 
find  expression  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
except  in  Pauline  thought. 

Whence     come    these    Johannean     conceptions? 
Many  of  them  occur  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus. 

238 


The  Johannean  Writings 

May  it  not  be  that  the  peculiar  Johannean  view  of 
the  Spirit  comes  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus?  If 
so,  then  the  Pauline  doctrine  has  some  basis  in  the 
words  of  Jesus,  and  the  high-water  mark  of  Chris- 
tian thought  on  this  subject  was  reached  by  our 
Lord  himself. 

It  is  not  a  violation  of  the  proper  objectivity  of 
scholarship  to  say  that  it  would  be  a  grateful  re- 
sult could  this  be  found  to  be  the  case.  The  loyal 
disciple  of  Christ  would  be  glad  to  see  the  highest 
development  of  a  course  of  thought  on  so  important 
a  religious  subject  manifest  in  germ,  even  if  not 
finding  complete  expression,  in  the  teachings  of  the 
Master  rather  than  in  the  thoughts  of  even  his  most 
honored  disciple.  The  question  is  whether  the  facts, 
so  far  as  they  can  now  be  recovered,  would  allow 
this  view  to  be  taken. 

Let  us  gather  up  the  uses  of  the  Spirit  which 
occur  in  the  Johannean  representation  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ.  We  find  that  they  include  the  follow- 
ing classes  of  Johannean  usage: 

AB.  The  charismatic  Spirit:  14.  17;  15.  26;  16. 
13;  20.  22. 

C.  The  Spirit  as  the  basis  of  Christian  life:  3.  5, 
6,8. 

John  3.  5,  6,  8,  representing  the  Spirit  as  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  4ife,  is  at  the  farthest  re- 
move from  the  synoptic  teaching  of  Christ.  Ob- 
viously it  will  not  do  to  say  that  this  idea  of  the 
Spirit  could  not  have  stood  in  the  preaching  of 
Christ  by  the  side  of  the  ordinary  Jewish  charis- 

239 


The  Spirit  of  God 

matic  view.  We  find  that  the  two  did  so  stand 
together  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  But  even  so  the 
cases  are  not  parallel.  The  Spirit  was  an  element 
of  very  great  importance  in  Paul's  system  of 
thought.  It  filled  a  large  measure  of  the  horizon 
in  the  explanation  of  Christian  phenomena  both  for 
himself  and  for  his  contemporaries.  We  can  see 
how  this  new  factor  of  his  thought  on  the  subject 
took  shape.  With  the  teaching  of  Jesus  it  was 
different.  The  Spirit  was  not  prominent.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  explain  how  a  new  interpretation 
of  the  Spirit  could  have  grown  up  in  the  mind  of 
Jesus.  The  Pauline  idea  would  be  unnatural  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  an  isolated  phenomenon  without 
connection.  It  is  also  strange,  if  this  be  a  real 
factor  in  Christ's  teaching  of  the  Spirit,  that  only 
the  fourth  gospel  contains  any  allusion  to  it.  Gun- 
kel  (page  82)  naturally  questions  if  such  teaching 
can  be  that  of  Christ,  and  decides  that  it  must  rather 
be  the  author's.1  Whatever  its  origin  it  is  improb- 
able that  it  belonged  to  the  original  teaching  of 
Jesus. 

The  references  to  the  Spirit  in  the  last  discourses 
of  Jesus  belong  to  a  different  class  of  ideas.  The 
Spirit  is  here  the  Messianic  charismatic  Spirit,  given 
not  only  to  comfort  the  disciples,  but,  through  their 
testimony,  to  "convict  the  world"  (16.  8).  It  will 
come  only  after  the  departure  of  Jesus  (16.  7), 
and  promises  to  the  disciples  the  divine  guidance 

1  Wendt,  it  is  true,  makes  it  a  part  of  his  apostolic  "source"  (p.  68),  but 
on  the  supposition  that  the  Spirit  is  here  psychological,  not  theological, 
and  corresponds  to  "eternal  life,"  as  in  7.  63. 

24O 


The  Johannean  Writings 

in  their  future  need.  It  is  thus  far  the  correlative 
of  Christ's  promise  in  the  synoptists  that  when, 
after  his  departure,  the  disciples  are  brought  before 
kings  and  rulers  for  his  sake,  the  Spirit  shall  speak 
through  them.  Only  in  one  respect  is  the  Johan- 
nean representation  an  advance  upon  the  synoptic. 
There  the  Spirit  is  evidently  a  charismatic  gift  upon 
occasions  of  need.  Here  it  is  represented  as  a 
divine  power  which  will  be  with  them  "forever"  ( 14. 
16),  which  will  "abide"  with  them  (14.  17),  in 
contrast  to  Christ,  who  must  "go  away."  There 
we  have  only  the  Jewish  charismatic  Spirit.  Here 
we  have  a  factor  of  the  Pauline  element  of  the  Spirit 
as  an  abiding  presence,  controlling  the  life  not 
merely  in  cases  of  special  need,  but  in  its  continual 
Christian  activity;  manifesting  itself  not  merely  in 
occasional  miraculous  expressions,  but  in  a  con- 
tinual divine  teaching  (14.  26;  16.  13)  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  Christ's  message  to  the  church  and  the 
world.  John  gives  us  this  much  of  the  Pauline  idea, 
as  distinguished  from  the  Jewish,  but  Paul's  idea 
of  the  basis  of  this  permanence  of  the  Spirit  in 
Christian  life,  namely,  that  the  Spirit  is  itself  the 
origin  of  the  life,  is  not  found  in  John's  account  of 
the  last  discourses.  How  can  we  explain  this  min- 
gling of  uses?  Is  it  possible  that  it  may  go  back 
to  the  teaching  of  Jesus?  If  so,  it  might  have 
arisen  from  an  expansion  of  the  ordinary  Jewish 
temporary  charismatic  conception  into  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Spirit  as  a  permanent  charismatic  gift. 
This  would  be  a  natural  evolution  of  thought,  and 
(16)  241 


The  Spirit  of  God 

would  fit  the  general  character  of  Christ's  teaching. 
Jewish  thought  had  approached  the  line  of  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  ideas  before,  if,  indeed,  it  had 
not,  as  some  have  maintained,  actually  crossed  it, 
in  its  thought  of  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  wisdom 
and  prudence.  Certainly  we  cannot  confidently 
affirm  that  this  could  not  have  been  a  teaching  of 
Jesus. 

In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  probabilities  seem 
to  be  against  its  being  a  teaching  of  Jesus,  for  the 
following  reasons:  i.  It  is  not  found  in  the  synop- 
tic teaching  of  Jesus.  2.  The  development  of 
thought  usually  takes  place  in  topics  which  are 
within  the  center  of  attention.  In  Christ's  teach- 
ing the  center  of  attention  was  not  occupied  by  the 
Spirit.  3.  The  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  a  permanent 
possession  being  common  in  the  Christian  world 
before  the  writing  of  the  fourth  gospel,  it  would  be 
natural  that  it  should  enter  this  gospel  as  one  of 
the  unconscious  modifications  of  the  original  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  Since,  then,  it  is  difficult  to  account 
for  the  idea  as  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  Christ,  but 
easy  to  account  for  it  as  a  Christian  addition,  the 
probability  lies  against  its  coming  from  Christ. 

Does  this  carry  with  it,  however,  the  probability 
that  the  entire  teaching  of  John  14  to  16  regarding 
the  Spirit  did  not  originate  with  Christ?  Not  at 
all.  There  is  no  adequate  reason  why  the  central 
thought  of  the  charismatic  Spirit  may  not  belong 
to  Christ's  last  talk  with  his  disciples.  In  fact, 
such   a   thought   as   this   would   be  a   most   natu- 

242 


The  Johannean  Writings 

ral,  one  might  almost  say  an  inevitable,  element 
in  a  farewell  discourse  of  Jesus  to  them.  We 
may  go  farther.  There  are  two  lines  of  thought 
regarding  the  future  relation  of  Christ  to  his 
disciples  running  through  this  discourse.  Ac- 
cording to  one  Jesus  himself  will  return  to  his 
orphaned  followers.  According  to  the  other  the 
Father  will,  at  his  request,  send  the  Spirit.  Now, 
if  one  feels  compelled,  on  account  of  a  sense  of  their 
lack  of  harmony,  to  deny  one  or  the  other  of  these 
elements  to  the  original  teaching  of  Jesus,  it  must 
be  the  first,  not  the  last.  Christ's  future  presence 
with  his  disciples  belongs  to  the  author's  Christo- 
logical  scheme,  but  the  Spirit  as  the  future  guide 
of  the  disciples  is  verified  as  Christ's  teaching  by 
the  synoptic  gospels  and  the  natural  conclusions 
from  Jewish  Messianic  thought.  Not  only,  then,  is 
there  no  ground  for  rejecting  from  Christ's  teach- 
ing the  general  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  in  John  14  to 
16,  but  there  is  every  ground  for  retaining  it.  But 
the  probabilities  are  that  the  Spirit  was  originally, 
as  in  the  synoptists,  a  temporary  gift  for  special 
needs.  If  after  passing  through  the  Johannean 
medium  the  Spirit  appears  in  these  chapters  as  a 
permanent  possession  of  the  Christian,  there  has 
only  happened  to  it  what  has  happened  to  other  fac- 
tors of  Christ's  teaching  in  the  fourth  gospel. 
There  has,  not  unnaturally,  gathered  about  it  a 
penumbra  of  early  Christian  thought  and  interpre- 
tation. As  in  other  cases,  also,  the  question  of 
separation  between  the  original  teaching  and  the 

243 


The  Spirit  of  God 

addition  is  not  one  of  the  dissection  of  words 
and  clauses,  like  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch, 
but  of  the  dissection  of  thought.  It  is  not  a  prob- 
lem of  documentary  criticism,  but  of  historical 
criticism. 

Whence  did  the  Johannean  author  obtain  the 
Pauline  elements  in  the  views  which  he  presents? 
This  is  a  question  involved  in  the  general  problem 
of  the  origin  of  Johannean  theology,  a  problem 
which  has  not  even  yet  received  an  adequate  an- 
swer. Without  doubt  the  Johannean  author  was  a 
religious  genius,  from  whose  deep  mystical  nature 
there  came  an  emphasis  on  certain  aspects  of  Chris- 
tian life  and  thought  that  needs  no  other  explana- 
tion. But  back  of  all  emphasis  lies  the  question  of 
a  theological  substrate.  Even  a  mystic  does  not 
discover  theology  by  intuition.  The  power  of  a 
religious  genius  lies  rather  in  the  discernment  of 
certain  relations  and  the  ability  to  make  prominent 
certain  elements  in  the  common  religious  thought 
of  his  time.  Such  power  our  author  shows  with 
a  clearness  that  few  have  equaled.  He  forces  re- 
ligious thought  to  the  central  idea  of  union  with 
God.  This  would,  however,  lead  to  no  new  or 
original  conception  of  the  Spirit.  In  fact,  it  would, 
if  it  had  any  effect,  tend  to  minimize  that  idea,  to 
make  the  Spirit  of  less  importance  as  the  soul  ap- 
proached God  more  closely.  This  author  is  hin- 
dered by  no  Jewish  fear  for  the  dignity  of  God 
which  should  make  him  hesitate  to  bring  God  into 
contact  with  man.     He  uses  the  same  freedom  of 

244 


The  Johannean  Writings 

expression  for  the  close  relation,  the  union,  of  God 
and  man  which  mystics  have  ever  used.  The  use 
of  the  Spirit  by  such  a  writer  can  only  be  tradi- 
tional. His  own  thought  does  not  need  it.  Weiss 
(II,  409)  says,  "The  full  joy  of  believers  is  not,  as 
with  Paul,  a  work  of  the  Spirit,  but  a  result  of  abid- 
ing in  Christ  (15.  11),  of  their  own  prayers  being 
heard  (16.  24),  and  of  Christ's  intercession  (17. 
13)."  This  is  the  true  mystic  position.  Weiss 
draws  the  distinction  between  the  outpouring  of 
the  Spirit  in  3.  5,  as  the  starting  point  of  the  moral 
new  birth,  and  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  principle  of  the  new  moral  life.  But  wher- 
ever the  Spirit  occurs  in  early  Christian  thought  it 
is  not  treated  as  occasion,  but  as  cause.  It  stands 
in  a  causal  relation  to  whatever  phenomenon  is 
ascribed  to  it,  whether  that  be  a  temporary  gift  or 
a  permanent  life.  One  can  hardly  conceive  that  in 
the  Jewish  background  of  Christian  thought  it 
should  not  always  have  been  regarded  as  a  cause. 
When  it  came  to  be  applied  to  Christian  life  it  could 
hardly  have  been  regarded  otherwise  than  as  the 
cause  of  that  life.  Such  would  also  be  the  most 
natural  meaning  of  6.  63,  "My  words  are  Spirit  and 
life,"  interpreted  by  the  preceding  clause,  "It  is  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth." 

To  state  it  in  other  words:  There  are  two  pos- 
sible ways  of  expressing  the  divine  origin  of  the 
new  religious  life  of  the  Christians.  One  is  to 
regard  it  as  proceeding  directly  from  the  soul's  re- 
lation to  God.     This  is  the  method  natural  to  the 

245 


The  Spirit  of  God 

mystic.  The  other  is  to  make  not  God,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God,  its  source.  This  belongs  to  the 
Judaic-Pauline  growth  of  Christian  expression. 
Now,  both  these  are  found  in  John.  The  great  body 
of  the  gospel  belongs  to  the  first  class.  The  entire 
expression  of  the  epistles  also  belongs  to  the  first 
class.  Isolated  expressions  of  the  second  class  lie 
in  their  context  quite  unassimilated.  They  are  not 
a  part  of  the  author's  system  of  thought.  Whence 
did  they  come?  They  occur  in  the  discourses  of 
Jesus,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  their  Pauline  elements 
are  quite  as  much  out  of  accord  with  his  teaching 
as  with  that  of  the  author.  They  must,  however, 
have  come  to  the  author  as  a  part  of  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  but  molded  and  colored  somewhat  by  a  de- 
veloped Christian  thought.  So  far  as  we  can  trace 
their  origin,  it  is  Pauline.  How  widely  the  Pauline 
conception  had  become  extended  in  the  Christian 
church  by  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  fourth 
gospel,  and  by  what  means  it  had  molded  the  ex- 
pression of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  found  in  this 
gospel,  are  questions  to  which  no  answer  can  be 
given.     The  facts,  however,  seem  fairly  clear.1 

1  Weiss  and  Beyschlag  take  different  views  of  3.  3-5.  Beyschlag  regards 
John's  idea  as  Pauline:  "In  John,  as  in  Paul,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  life  from  God  which  distinguishes  the  Christian  from  the  natural 
man"  (II,  452).  Weiss  says,  "The  Holy  Spirit  is  never,  as  exclusively 
with  Paul,  regarded  as  the  principle  of  the  new  moral  life"  (II,  409,  note). 
Beyschlag' s  view  is  based  on  the  identity  of  the  Spirit  with  the  glorified 
Christ,  while  Weiss  sharply  distinguishes  between  the  two.  The  latter 
seems  to  hint  at  a  double  notion  of  the  basis  of  Christian  life  in  the  follow- 
ing (IT,  375,  note):  "As  the  whole  idea  of  being  born  of  God  is  specifically 
Johannean,  so  the  idea,  occurring  in  the  speeches  of  Christ,  of  being  born 
of  water  and  the  Spirit  (3  5)  is  nowhere  further  realized  by  the  apostle." 
Weiss  is  here  distinguishing  between  what  I  have  called  the  mystic  con- 
ception of  an  immediate  relation  of  the  believer  to  God  and  the  Judaic- 
Pauline  conception  of  that  relation  as  mediated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Weiss, 
however,  does  not  use  that  distinction  further.  Its  full  recognition  seems 
to  be  the  only  way  to  explain  the  peculiar  contradiction  in  John. 

246 


The  Johannean  Writings 

One  element  of  the  criticism  of  the  Johannean 
writings  must  enter  into  the  final  settlement  of  this 
problem.  It  is  the  question  of  the  Alexandrian 
character  of  these  writings.  That  certain  factors 
in  them,  notably  the  Logos  doctrine,  have  at  least 
Alexandrian  affinities  has  long  been  admitted. 
How  far  this  Alexandrian  influence  goes,  how  much 
of  the  thought  of  the  gospel  it  affects,  whether  it 
is  only  a  touch  of  the  environment  in  which  the  gos- 
pel was  produced  or  is  an  essential  part  of  the  au- 
thor's mental  furnishings,  are  still  open  problems. 
Quite  as  open,  but  lying  in  another  sphere,  is  the 
question  of  whether  the  gospel  cannot  be  divided, 
and  the  Alexandrian  element  traced  only  in  one 
source  or  group  of  sources.  The  full  consideration 
of  these  problems  lies  outside  of  our  investigation. 
The  general  question,  however,  of  Alexandrian 
material  in  the  gospel  enters  into  the  problem  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Johannean  writings. 
It  is  possible  to  discuss  the  relations  of  Alexandrian 
thought  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  without  affirm- 
ing any  certain  conclusions  regarding  the  questions 
of  detail  suggested  above.  The  problem  of  Alexan- 
drian affinities  in  the  fourth  gospel  has  been  largely 
discussed  on  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos 
in  the  Prologue.  But  if  the  gospel  is  so  thoroughly 
Alexandrian  as  some  have  asserted,  not  only  the 
Logos  doctrine,  but  other  elements  of  thought, 
would  naturally  be  affected.  Among  these  we  might 
naturally  expect  to  find  the  Spirit.  Upon  examina- 
tion, however,  the  Johannean  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 

247 


The  Spirit  of  God 

does  not  prove  to  be  Alexandrian.    The  following 
differences  are  noted : 

i.  Alexandrian  thought  considered  the  working 
of  the  charismatic  Spirit  to  lie  wholly  in  the  sphere 
of  the  unusual  and  extraordinary.  It  pertained  to 
prophecy,  exceptional  skill  and  wisdom,  and  the 
like.  It  was  not  a  part  of  the  mental  furnishing 
of  every  good  man  or  of  every  worshiper  of  Jah- 
veh.  Johannean  thought,  on  the  other  hand,  has 
ceased  to  emphasize  the  unusual  as  a  proof  of  the 
Spirit's  possession.  The  Spirit  is  a  necessary  and 
normal  element  in  the  Christian's  life.  Without 
it  he  would  be  left  in  ignorance  (John  14.  26;  16. 
13),  without  proof  of  God's  abiding  in  him  (1 
John  4.  13),  and  without  power  to  advance  the 
Messianic  kingdom  (John  16.  8).  In  the  matter 
of  the  function  of  the  charismatic  Spirit  the  Johan- 
nean theology  is  more  nearly  akin  to  Pauline  than 
to  Alexandrian  thought.  This  leads  naturally  to 
the  second  distinction. 

2.  Alexandrian  thought  treated  the  charismatic 
Spirit  as  necessarily  only  a  temporary  possession. 
It  might  have  been  a  permanent  possession  had  man 
not  sinned,  but,  having  sinned,  he  has  lost  the  abid- 
ing presence  of  the  Spirit  (see  page  106).  The 
Johannean  writings,  as  we  have  seen,  represent  the 
Spirit  as  the  permanent  gift  of  God  to  the  believer. 
This  difference  is  dependent  on  the  preceding  point, 
for  it  belongs  rather  to  problems  of  the  function 
than  of  the  nature  of  the  Spirit. 

3.  Alexandrian   thought   regards   the   Spirit   as 

248 


The  Johannean  Writings 

ultimately  equivalent  to  the  Logos.  It  is  one  of 
the  powers  of  God,  all  representing  essentially  the 
same  reality  (see  page  95,  ff.).  One  might  well 
expect,  therefore,  if  the  Alexandrian  affinities  are 
strong,  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  gospel  would 
regard  the  two  as  equivalent;  but  there  is  nothing 
in  his  use  of  the  Logos  and  the  Spirit  to  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  did.  The  fact  that  on  the  points 
noted  above  Johannean  thought  does  not  agree  with 
Alexandrian  also  makes  against  the  agreement  of 
the  two  on  this  point.  So  does  the  fact  that  the 
Christian  author  develops  his  thought  in  the  light 
of  the  historical  person  of  Christ.  For  the  Alex- 
andrian writers  speculative  truth  was  the  most  im- 
portant thing  in  the  horizon.  For  the  Johannean 
writer  all  thought  and  all  speculationweredominated 
by  the  figure  of  the  man  Jesus  Christ.  Along  with 
this  there  was  the  common  Christian  emphasis  on 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  present  in  the  Christian  church. 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  were  to  Christian  thought 
more  distinct  and  living  ideas  than  were  the  Logos 
and  the  Spirit  to  the  speculative  thought  of  Alex- 
andrian Jews.  The  distinctness  of  the  figures  of 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  would  tend  against  the  identi- 
fication of  their  natures,  as  Alexandrian  thought 
identified  the  Logos  and  the  Spirit.  Only  a  writer 
in  whom  the  philosophical  feeling  dominated  the 
historical  could  so  far  isolate  himself  from  the  in- 
fluence of  his  Christian  surroundings  as  to  lose  the 
sense  of  ontological  distinction  between  the  glori- 
fied Christ  and  the  Spirit.     That  this  author  uses 

249 


The  Spirit  of  God 

the  return  of  Christ  and  the  coming  of  the  Spirit 
as  different  expressions  for  the  same  historical  proc- 
ess does  not  argue  the  ontological  identity  of  Christ 
and  the  Spirit,  but  only  that  their  function  is  in 
that  respect  the  same.  On  exegetical  grounds  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  to  regard  the  relation  of 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  as  different  here  from  that  re- 
lation in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  On 
the  whole,  Alexandrian  philosophy  throws  no  light 
on  the  origin  or  the  meaning  of  the  Johannean  doc- 
trine of  the  Spirit.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
two  systems  of  thought  were  at  this  point  in  the 
least  affiliation. 

When  we  turn  to  consider  the  place  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  Johannean  system  of  thought  three  subjects 
present  themselves :  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
believer,  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  Christ,  and  the 
relation  of  the  Spirit  to  God. 

It  was  said  above  that  the  thought  foremost  in 
the  mind  of  the  author  is  the  Christian  community, 
not  the  individual  believer.  Yet  the  individual 
does  not  disappear,  and  the  problem  of  divine  rela- 
tion remains,  as  it  must  always  remain,  a  personal 
problem.  The  author's  conception  is  not  out  of 
accord  with  the  historic  Jewish  conception  of  the 
Spirit  as  God  guiding,  and  lies  within  the  Christian 
idea  of  the  Spirit  as  God  guiding  the  development 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom  through  the  believers. 
He  lays  emphasis  upon  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  takes 
the  place  of  the  embodied  Christ,  but  this  is  not 
wholly  new.     The  first  two  chapters  of  Acts  ex- 

250 


The  Johannean  Writings 

press  the  same  idea  (Acts  i.  2,  5,  8;  2.  33).  He 
also  holds  that,  although  the  Messiah  had  the  Spirit 
(3.  34),  it  was  not  given  to  the  believers  till  after 
Christ's  resurrection  (14.  16,  f . ;  16.  7;  20.  22). 
It  could  not  then  be  the  causal  principle  of  the 
Christian  life,  for  that  life  of  union  with  God  which 
he  calls  "the  eternal  life"  was  open  to  all  men  in 
all  time.  According  to  the  Prologue  (1.  9)  this 
life  depends  on  the  Logos,  who  has  ever  been  the 
light  of  God,  not  upon  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  is 
peculiarly  the  divine  means  of  extending  the  work 
of  Christ.  His  function  is  entirely  subordinate. 
His  work  is,  as  Beyschlag  puts  it  (I,  281),  prophetic 
rather  than  ethical.  It  is  to  instruct  the  believers, 
to  call  to  mind  what  Christ  has  taught,  to  lead  them 
out  into  a  fuller  revelation  of  God,  that  God  may 
through  them  convict  the  world  without.  We  notice 
a  distinction  between  this  and  the  Pauline  view. 
There  the  Spirit  is  also  for  the  development  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  but  by  means  of  the 
development  of  the  ethical  life  of  the  individual  be- 
liever. The  religious  life  was  the  Spirit  of  God 
living  itself  out  in  the  believer.  The  Johannean  idea 
is  of  the  Spirit  as  preparing  men  for  witness.  We 
see  also  a  difference  between  this  and  the  primitive 
Christian  ideas,  as,  for  example,  in  the  Lucan  writ- 
ings. There  the  Spirit  fills  men  for  witness,  directly 
leads  them  to  their  work,  and  guides  them  in  its  per- 
formance. That  is  Jewish  in  its  content,  growing 
directly  out  of  the  old  charismatic  conception.  Here 
it  stands  at  a  farther  remove  from  the  old  concep- 

251 


The  Spirit  of  God 

tion.  The  Spirit  instructs  as  well  as  guides,  while 
the  initiation  of  Christian  action  lies  with  the  soul  in 
communion  with  the  Father  through  Christ.  This 
also  is  in  accord  with  the  common  mystic  thought. 

Another  and  kindred  function  in  the  epistles  is 
that  of  the  Spirit  as  a  witness  and  pledge  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  believer  by  God  ( i  John  3.  24 ;  4. 
J3;  5-  7>  8).  These  passages  imply  some  means  of 
judging  of  the  possession  of  the  Spirit,  whether 
by  the  exhibition  of  spiritual  gifts  or  by  a  mystical 
consciousness  or  in  whatever  way  it  may  be. 
Probably  the  author  has  in  mind  the  possession  of 
love  as  the  pledge  of  the  Spirit's  presence  (1  John 
4.  7-13).  He  who  has  Christian  love  may  thereby 
know  that  the  Spirit  dwells  in  him.  1  John  4.  1-6 
couples  with  the  assurance  of  the  Spirit's  possession 
the  confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  As  a  matter 
of  course  the  whole  Christian  life  in  its  power  for 
witness  is  based  on  that  confession.  The  Spirit  is 
here,  as  in  the  last  discourses  in  the  gospel,  charis- 
matic. It  follows  upon  faith,  rather  than  supplies 
the  ground  of  it.  The  Spirit  is  the  result  of  the 
abiding  of  Christ  in  the  believer,  and  it  is  also  the 
witness  of  that  abiding.  Paul  likewise  (Rom.  8. 
16)  uses  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  as  witnessing  in  the 
heart  of  the  believer,  but  there  the  Spirit  is  the 
origin  of  the  life  of  faith ;  here  that  life  is  produced 
by  God,  and  the  Spirit  comes,  charismatically,  not 
to  cause  the  life,  but  to  strengthen  it.1 

1  Beyschlag  (II,  452)  takes  the  opposite  view.  He  does  not  find  the  full 
expression  of  the  position  that  the  Spirit  originates  the  Christian  life  in  the 
epistles,  but  he  asserts  that  in  1  John  2.  20-27  the  "anointing"   (%pio[ia) 

252 


The  Johannean  Writings 

Passing  from  the  relation  between  the  Spirit  and 
the  believer  to  that  between  the  Spirit  and  Christ, 
we  enter  upon  a  field  which  has  received  much  study 
and  in  which  diametrically  opposite  opinions  have 
been  advanced.  Two  views  have  been  held:  one, 
that  the  Spirit  is  but  a  personification  of  the  glori- 
fied Christ;  the  other,  that  the  Spirit  represents  a 
distinct  personality.  The  first  is  held  by  Beyschlag, 
and  is  the  controlling  element  in  his  entire  inter- 
pretation of  the  Johannean  conception  of  the  Spirit. 
The  teaching  of  Jesus,  he  holds,  contained  two  fig- 
ures to  express  the  future  relation  of  the  Messiah 
to  his  followers:  one,  that  of  the  continued  pres- 
ence of  the  Messiah  with  his  disciples;  the  other, 
that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  would  be  present  with 
the  disciples.  The  last  was  founded  on  the  Old 
Testament  prophecy  of  the  Messianic  time.  These 
two  modes  of  teaching  "mutually  exclude  each  other 
as  forms  of  representation."  The  contradiction  can 
of  necessity,  however,  be  only  one  of  form ;  the  un- 
derlying idea  must  be  a  unity.  The  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  believer  and  Christ  in  him  must  be  one  and  the 
same  thing.  "He  is  the  Spirit  and  the  life  of  Christ 
in  the  believer;  he  is — and  this  is  the  solution  of 
the  whole  riddle — the  Christ  in  us  (Rom.  8.  9; 
comp.  verse  10). "  The  Spirit  cannot  come  until 
Christ  has  departed,  because  the  Spirit  is  the  glori- 


refers  to  the  Spirit,  and  that  "the  author  simply  presupposes  the  sanc- 
tifying side  of  the  possession  of  the  Spirit."  Why  make  him  here  presup- 
pose what  he  nowhere  else  in  the  epistle  expresses?  Beyschlag  takes  the 
anointing"  to  mean  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  the  Christian  life  because 
he  identifies  the  Spirit  and  the  glorified  Christ.  If  that  identification  is 
not  accepted,  Beyschlag's  interpretation  falls  with  it. 

253 


The  Spirit  of  God 

fied  Christ — a  "pictorial  representation"  of  his  pres- 
ence. Yet  there  remains  "a  twofold  distinction" 
between  the  figure  and  its  reality:  First,  the  figure 
is  narrower  than  the  reality.  "Christ  is  not  limited 
to  the  Spirit,  but  also  remains  in  his  perfect  per- 
sonal existence  with  the  Father  above  the  world." 
Second,  the  activity  of  the  Spirit  is  dependent  on 
the  historical  personality  of  Christ.  The  Spirit 
can  bring  nothing  new  into  the  world,  but  can  only 
develop  the  meaning  of  Christ.  Reuss  also  holds 
that  the  Johannean  author  attempts  to  make  no 
personal  distinction  between  Christ  and  the  Spirit. 

The  view  that  the  fourth  gospel  makes  a  personal 
distinction  between  Christ  and  the  Spirit  is  pre- 
sented by  Stevens,  in  his  Johannean  Theology 
(page  194,  ff.).  The  argument  as  formulated  is 
exegetical.  The  Spirit  is  called  "another  com- 
forter," dXXog  TTagdKXriTog ,  Christ  himself  being  one, 
according  to  1  John  2.  1,  and  is  distinguished  from 
Christ  by  his  dependence  on  Christ.  If  a  person 
at  all,  then,  he  cannot  be  the  same  person  as  Christ. 
The  use  of  pronouns  indicates  personality,  for 
"John,  except  when  prevented  from  so  doing  by 
the  grammatical  gender  of  nvsv/jia  (Spirit),  uni- 
formly designates  the  Spirit  by  masculine  pronouns 
implying  personality"  (page  196).  A  series  of 
activities  only  appropriate  to  persons  is  ascribed  to 
him — speaking,  teaching,  bearing  testimony,  hold- 
ing fellowship  with  the  disciples,  and  the  like. 

These  are  the  well-known  exegetical  arguments 
for  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     They  do 

254 


The  Johannean  Writings 

not  meet  the  position  taken  by  Beyschlag,  of  the 
Spirit  as  a  "pictorial  representation,"  where  all  the 
elements  of  personality  are  confessedly  present,  but, 
of  course,  only  as  a  part  of  the  figure. 

One  is  led  to  question  whether  either  of  these 
views  takes  into  account  sufficiently  the  Jewish 
historical  background  of  the  doctrine.  Had  the 
doctrine  of  the  Spirit  begun  with  Christianity,  it 
must  have  meant  either  a  representation  of  Christ 
or  a  distinctly  separate  person.  But  it  came  into 
Christianity  with  its  content  already  formed.  The 
Spirit  was  not  only  the  representative  of  God;  it 
was  God  himself,  acting  in  the  world  through  the 
Messianic  kingdom.  As  far  as  the  Messiah  repre- 
sented God,  so  far  the  functions  of  the  two  were 
the  same;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  problems  of  personality  entered  the  thought  of 
the  writer  at  all.  Beyschlag  and  those  who  think 
with  him  are  right  in  affirming  that  the  presence 
of  the  glorified  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
the  world  must  be  one  in  significance.  It  is  true 
that  the  Spirit  and  Christ  are  both  representations 
of  the  divine  care  for  the  disciples  and  of  the  divine 
control  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  One  form  of 
expression  comes  from  the  teaching  of  Christ  and 
the  feeling  of  the  value  of  the  historic  person  of 
Jesus  for  Christian  life,  and  the  other  from  the 
traditional  Jewish  ideas  molded  by  Christian  con- 
cepts and  also  expressed,  although  not  prominently, 
in  the  teaching  of  Christ  himself.  But  because  the 
two  expressions  represent  the  same  divine  move- 

255 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ment  in  history  it  does  not  follow  that  they  repre- 
sent the  same  personality  in  the  usual  sense  of  the 
word.  Doubtless  it  would  be  more  logical  that 
they  should,  but  conceptions  determined  by  tradition 
do  not  always  follow  the  line  of  least  logical  resist- 
ance. It  would  have  been  somewhat  unnatural  if 
the  traditional  distinctions  between  the  Spirit  and 
the  Messiah  had  been  so  speedily  swallowed  up  in 
the  personality  of  the  Messiah. 

Does  it  follow,  then,  that  the  Spirit  and  the 
Messiah  were  conceived  of  as  distinct  personalities? 
One  fails  to  see  that  the  Johannean  theology  makes 
a  stronger  demand  for  this  than  does  the  Pauline 
theology  or  the  conceptions  of  primitive  Christian- 
ity. The  expression  in  the  Johannean  theology  is 
somewhat  different  from  that  in  the  last  two,  but 
the  essence  of  the  idea  lying  behind  the  expression 
seems  not  diverse.  As  the  Johannean  thought 
draws  together  Christ  and  God,  so  it  draws  to- 
gether Christ  and  the  Spirit,  the  historic  expression 
for  God  acting,  yet  without  making  philosophical 
affirmation  about  their  personalities. 

The  Johannean  writings  add  nothing  to  the  com- 
mon Christian  idea  concerning  the  relation  of  the 
Spirit  to  God.  The  Spirit  comes  from  God;  he  is 
the  Spirit  of  truth  because  he  witnesses  to  the  truth 
of  God  in  the  believer ;  he  is  the  pledge  of  the  abid- 
ing presence  of  God  in  the  heart.  The  relation  of 
God  to  the  Spirit,  however,  seems  to  be  no  more 
one  of  identity  than  it  is  elsewhere  in  Christian 
writings.    It  is  true,  as  Walker,  in  The  Spirit  and 

256 


The  Johannean  Writings 

the  Incarnation,  says,  that  we  cannot  draw  distinc- 
tions between  God,  Christ,  and  the  Spirit.  That, 
however,  is  true  only  in  a  dynamical  and  not  in  a 
statical  sense.  In  one  sense  the  Spirit  is  God 
acting  in  the  world.  That  lies  in  the  field  of  opera- 
tion, of  phenomenon;  that  is  dynamical.  In  the 
field  of  ontology,  the  statical  sense,  there  is  no  af- 
firmation of  either  distinction  or  identity.  The 
question  of  identity  and  distinction  of  substance 
had  not  yet  arisen.  Christianity  was  as  yet  un- 
philosophical. 

It  is  of  little  use  to  force  back  later  theological 
distinctions  into  the  more  naive  and  simple  litera- 
ture of  the  New  Testament.  The  assumption  some- 
times made,  that  the  Johannean  writings  may  be 
expected  to  yield  a  ground  for  such  fine  philosoph- 
ical distinctions  because  they  are  more  or  less 
tinctured  with  an  Alexandrian  philosophical  flavor, 
is  quite  without  warrant.  On  the  subject  of  the 
Spirit,  moreover,  the  Johannean  author  is  not 
Alexandrian.  Alexandrian  philosophy,  also,  itself 
is  peculiarly  vague  on  the  point  of  the  personality 
of  its  divine  "powers."  That  philosophy  had  evi- 
dently not  only  never  come  to  any  clear  conclu- 
sions on  the  subject  of  the  personality  of  the  Logos, 
the  Spirit,  and  the  other  powers  of  God,  but  had 
not  even  been  conscious  of  any  question  regarding 
it.  Neither  his  Palestinian  nor  his  Alexandrian 
affiliations,  then,  would  lead  us  to  expect  clear 
statements  on  the  subject  of  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit  from  the  writer  of  the  Johannean  books. 
(17)  257 


The  Spirit  of  God 

After  all,  his  contribution  to  Christian  thought  lies 
in  quite  a  different  field  from  the  conception  of 
the  Spirit.  Regarding  that  subject  Paul,  not  the 
Johannean  writer,  took  the  last  step  of  biblical 
progress. 

258 


PART  III 

CONCLUSION 


PARTHI 

Conclusion 

The  key  to  the  entire  history  of  the  development 
of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  is  experience.  The  study 
of  this  development  is  primarily  a  psychological 
study.  Men  explained  the  origin  of  certain  expe- 
riences which  were  to  them  vital,  vivid,  profoundly 
real,  and  religiously  significant  by  the  thought  that 
God  was  moving  in  them.  This  was  the  idea  as 
far  back  in  Semitic  antiquity  as  we  can  trace  the 
conception  of  the  Spirit.  This  is  the  idea  in  the 
New  Testament  period,  when  once  more  men  felt 
themselves  to  be  the  subjects  of  the  direct  activity 
of  God,  who  was  working  out  his  eternal  purposes 
by  means  of  their  lives. 

But  it  was  not  upon  any  and  all  sorts  of  experi- 
ences that  men  felt  they  could  place  this  explanation 
of  divine  origin  and  force;  it  was  only  upon  those 
experiences  in  which,  for  some  reason,  they  believed 
that  the  hand  of  God  could  be  seen.  Primarily  that 
meant  upon  experiences  accompanied  by  strong  emo- 
tion. It  was  preeminently  so  at  the  first.  The  earliest 
application  of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  we 
can  find  in  Hebrew  history  is  to  the  prophetic  ec- 
stasy. This  was  supremely  emotional.  To  understand 
its  meaning  to  those  who  experienced  or  witnessed 
it  we  must  leave  our  modern  realm  of  logic  and  rea- 
son and  transfer  ourselves  into  an  earlier  and  cruder 

261 


The  Spirit  of  God 

stage  of  thought,  where  emotion  and  imagination 
ruled  supreme.  In  this  stage  men  surrendered  them- 
selves to  emotion  as  they  do  not  in  our  day.  There 
was  the  same  tendency  to  be  swept  away  by  emo- 
tion that  one  finds  in  childhood.  All  early  history 
and  all  crude  races  in  late  history  show  that  same 
subjection  to  emotion.  Their  experiences  under  its 
influence  had  to  them  supreme  value.  They  were 
the  most  intense  experiences  in  their  lives.  Natu- 
rally they  were  regarded  as  of  the  most  value.  That 
necessarily  meant  for  a  religious  race  that  a  reli- 
gious interpretation  was  put  upon  them  and  that 
they  were  thought  of  as  coming  from  God.  In  all 
periods  of  Hebrew  history  when  there  was  a  vigor- 
ous doctrine  of  the  Spirit  there  were  also  intense 
emotional  experiences.  This  was  not  less  true  of 
the  New  Testament  period  than  of  early  Hebrew 
history.  It  is  probably  difficult  for  us  to  exagger- 
ate the  depth  and  strength  of  the  emotion  of  the 
first  generation  of  Christians  as  they  thought  of 
how  God  had  at  last  once  more  come  close  to  man, 
chosen  them  personally  for  his  high  mission,  and, 
as  they  believed,  would  in  a  few  years  close  the 
history  of  this  age  with  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
and  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom.  Should  we 
be  inclined  to  depreciate  a  time  because  it  made 
emotion  so  prominent,  it  might  be  well  to  remember 
that  in  all  periods,  even  in  our  own  boasted  age  of 
reason,  the  supreme  importance  has,  after  all,  been 
attached  to  things  of  the  emotions.  People  will 
persist  in  believing  that  poetry  is  higher  than  prose 

262 


Conclusion 

and  that  love  is  worth  more  than  logic.  It  is  not, 
then,  a  degradation  of  the  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
to  recognize  that  it  had  its  origin,  as  it  has  always 
had  its  best  appreciation,  in  periods  rich  with  emo- 
tion, and  that  any  adequate  study  of  it  is  primarily 
a  study  of  human  emotions. 

There  are,  however,  elements  in  its  history  which 
are  not  emotional.  When  the  Spirit  was  assigned 
to  artisan  work,  like  that  of  Bezaleel,  emotion  could 
hardly  have  been  thought  to  play  a  part  in  it.  But 
such  a  use  has  an  important  limitation.  The  Spirit 
was  never  so  used  by  any  person  of  his  own  ex- 
perience or  that  of  his  contemporaries.  In  all  cases 
in  Hebrew  literature  where  living  experiences  were 
explained  as  coming  from  the  Spirit  of  God  there 
was  an  element  of  emotion  to  serve  as  the  basis  of 
that  explanation.  All  these  things  lead  us  to  the 
assertion  made  above,  that  the  key  to  the  entire 
history  of  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
experience,  and,  we  may  now  add,  emotional 
experience. 

Taking  this  as  the  starting  point,  let  us  review 
briefly  the  stages  of  development  through  which 
the  idea  passed.  The  concept  seems  to  have  been 
used  first  for  the  intense  emotions  which  induced 
or  accompanied  the  early  ecstatic  prophecy  that  ap- 
pears in  such  narrations  as  i  Sam.  10.  How  far 
back  into  the  pre-literary  period  this  use  extends  it 
is  impossible  to  say,  nor  is  the  question  one  of  spe- 
cial importance.  In  some  of  the  earliest  strata  of 
the  Hebrew  historical  books  we  find  the  term  al- 

263 


The  Spirit  of  God 

ready  extended  from  ecstatic  prophecy  to  warlike 
prowess.  The  popular  hero  who  led  the  nation  in 
war  or  did  deeds  of  mighty  valor  was  also  said  to 
be  under  the  power  of  the  Spirit,  though  he  never 
claimed  the  experience  for  himself.  Here  also  one 
need  not  look  far  to  find  an  emotional  content.  He 
who  knows  his  Iliad  will  not  need  to  be  reminded 
of  the  fierce  frenzy  of  the  ancient  warrior.  But 
now  there  begins  to  appear  the  second  factor  in 
the  development  of  this  idea,  that  it  must  have  a 
value  for  the  national  religious  life.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  the  period  the  word  "national"  is 
superfluous.  All  religion  was  national,  never  merely 
individual.  Whatever  emotional  experience  helped 
the  growth  of  the  nation  was  from  the  national 
God ;  it  was  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah. 

But  with  the  growth  of  an  ethical  religion  the 
old  ecstatic  prophecy  fell  into  a  measure  of  disre- 
pute. There  was  a  strife  of  prophecy  against 
prophecy,  and  the  older  and  cruder  went  down  be- 
fore higher  ideas.  But  the  older  prophet,  because 
of  his  ecstasy,  had  been  peculiarly  "the  man  of  the 
Spirit."  The  later  prophets  used  the  Spirit  less  as 
the  explanation  of  their  prophetic  activity,  so  that 
in  the  Deuteronomic  literature  the  term  has  quite 
disappeared  in  this  sense.1  But  meantime  a  new 
emphasis  has  been  thrown  upon  it,  which  intro- 
duces another  factor  in  the  development  of  the  idea. 
The  idea  has  been,   on  the  human  side,  emotion 

1  As  has  been  shown  by  Dr.  Shoemaker  in  "  The  Use  of  mi  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  of  nvevfia  in  the  New  Testament,"  Journal  of  Biblical 
Literature.  1904. 

264 


Conclusion 

religiously  interpreted.  But  it  is  also  possible  to 
look  at  it  from  the  divine  side.  Here  it  is — and 
this  is  the  third  factor — God  active  in  the  human 
life.  When,  however,  the  idea  began  to  be  used 
less  often  for  the  explanation  of  individual  effort 
it  was  natural  that  the  limitation  of  its  meaning 
to  the  human  life  should  disappear,  and  that  it 
should  be  thought  of  as  God  active  in  any  sphere 
of  his  creation.  This  is  what  took  place  in  the 
exilic  period:  The  Spirit  of  God  brooded  over 
chaos  and  made  creation.  God  sends  forth  his 
Spirit,  and  the  beasts  of  the  field  live ;  he  withdraws 
it,  and  they  die.  All  the  history  of  Israel  has  been 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  led 
them  in  the  wilderness.  The  Spirit  will  be  with 
the  Messiah  at  his  coming,  and  in  that  Messianic 
age  God  will  give  the  Spirit  to  all. 

By  the  time  of  the  post-exilic  period  the  empha- 
sis of  the  idea  had  passed  quite  definitely  from  the 
notion  of  emotional  experiences  to  the  notion  of  God 
acting;  and,  since  there  had  also  been  a  growth  of 
reverence  for  God  which  had  resulted  in  practi- 
cally putting  him  afar  off  from  man,  it  now  be- 
came impossible  to  interpret  present  experiences  as 
from  the  Spirit.  Even  when  the  deep  springs  of 
religious  and  patriotic  heroism  were  touched,  as 
in  the  Maccabean  revolt,  the  Spirit  was  not  used  of 
their  origin.  Thus  widely  had  the  term  departed 
from  its  original  use.  One  might  well  suppose  that 
it  had  entered  upon  a  new  field  so  remote  from  the 
old  that  it  would  never  return. 

265 


The  Spirit  of  God 

On  its  human  side,  then,  the  Spirit  as  the  ex- 
planation of  experience  became  in  the  Jewish  period 
a  memory  of  the  past  and  a  hope  for  the  future. 
On  its  divine  side,  as  a  name  for  God  acting,  it 
became  a  dogma.  As  a  dogma  one  step  more  was 
possible  for  it.  The  distinction  between  God  act- 
ing and  God  absolute,  between  the  dynamic  and  the 
static,  might  be  lost,  and  the  Spirit  come  to  be  used 
as  the  exact  equivalent  for  God.  In  Hebrew 
thought  this  step  was  never  taken.  There  were  ap- 
proaches to  it,  but  the  absolute  identification  of  the 
Spirit  and  God  was  avoided. 

That  combination  of  Greek  and  Jewish  thought 
which  we  call  Alexandrian  Judaism  added  no  new 
factor  to  the  history  of  the  development.  It  went 
back,  under  the  influence  of  ideas  borrowed  from  the 
Greek  conception  of  the  oracles,  to  the  earlier  and 
cruder  Hebrew  stage  in  which  the  Spirit  was  used 
to  explain  ecstasy;  then  it  used  that  cruder  concep- 
tion in  an  attempt  to  explain  all  the  prophecy  of 
the  Old  Testament.  In  this  way  it  became  the  pre- 
cursor of  much  later  theological  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, but  it  contributed  nothing  to  the  biblical 
development  of  the  idea. 

Thus  the  matter  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the 
New  Testament  period.  The  Spirit  is  a  memory  of 
God's  presence  with  his  people  in  the  past  and 
a  hope  for  his  presence  once  more  in  the  person  of 
the  Messiah  who  should  come  in  the  future.  The 
idea  of  the  Spirit  as  God  acting  in  the  external 
world  seems  already  to  have  disappeared.     It  is 

266 


Conclusion 

thought  of  only  in  connection  with  God's  action  on 
men. 

Now  comes  Christianity,  with  its  claim  of  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah.  With  it  there  is  a  new  wealth  of 
emotional  experiences.  Since  the  Messiah  has 
come  all  these  experiences  may  once  more  be  inter- 
preted as  from  the  Spirit.  So  may  all  experiences 
which  advance  the  purposes  of  God  in  the  new 
Messianic  movement.  Theoretically  this  opens  the 
way  for  the  assignment  to  the  Spirit  of  much 
besides  the  emotional.  Practically  it  would  seem 
that  in  the  first  few  years  of  Christian  history  the 
Spirit  was  kept  somewhat  closely  for  the  explana- 
tion of  those  experiences  of  the  Christian  church  in 
which  there  was  at  least  an  element  of  emotion. 
Still  such  factors  of  experience  as  wisdom  and 
judgment  were  occasionally  assigned  to  the  Spirit. 
The  tendency  to  expansion  was  present.  There  is, 
however,  no  hint  in  our  literature  that  any  tend- 
ency existed  toward  a  form  of  expansion  upon  which 
Hebrew  thought  had  once  entered  and  then  drawn 
back,  that  of  the  explanation  of  the  cosmic  process 
as  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  The  thought  of  the 
Christian  church  connected  the  Spirit  too  closely 
with  human  experience  to  allow  of  this.  The 
thought  of  the  Spirit  in  the  world  outside  of  man 
can  only  arise  under  one  of  two  conditions:  either 
when  the  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  experience 
has  been  lost,  and  the  idea  has  become  a  name 
for  God  acting,  as  was  the  case  in  the  exilic  and 
post-exilic   Hebrew   period;   or   when  the   distinc- 

267 


The  Spirit  of  God 

tion  between  the  relation  of  God  to  persons  and 
his  relation  to  the  impersonal  parts  of  the  creation 
has  been  lost.  Christian  theology  has  never  lost 
sight  of  that  distinction.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  it 
never  will.  The  Spirit  of  God  belongs  of  right  only 
to  the  action  of  God  on  human  hearts.  It  is  a  term 
for  the  action  of  the  divine  Person  on  human  per- 
sons. Such  is  its  New  Testament  meaning  and  its 
only  correct  use. 

Now,  with  its  meaning  fairly  fixed  to  human 
experiences,  the  last  factor  in  its  development  en- 
ters. I  have  spoken  of  it  as  belonging  to  experi- 
ences, in  the  plural.  It  was  the  explanation  of 
specific  events  in  life,  of  special  mental  powers 
or  emotional  periods,  considered  individually. 
Throughout  its  history  the  Spirit  had  been  in  large 
measure  God  acting  in  temporary  endowments.  In 
large  measure,  I  say,  for  even  Hebrew  thought  had 
touched  now  and  then  in  its  later  periods  the  idea 
of  the  Spirit  as  an  abiding  ethical  force  in  life,  in 
the  same  way  that  it  had  touched  many  things  that 
were  fundamental  in  later  Christian  life  and  ethics. 
But,  as  with  so  many  of  these  things,  that  idea 
was  so  rare  that  it  could  almost  be  called  sporadic. 
It  did  not  become  dominant.  Paul  grasped  the  idea 
of  the  unity  of  the  religious  life,  and  spoke  of  the 
Spirit  not  merely  as  God  acting  in  an  occasional 
extraordinary  and  emotional  experience,  but  as 
being  the  divine  source  and  basis  of  all  the  Chris- 
tian life.  For  him  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  cause 
not  only  of  religious  experiences,  but  of  religious 

268 


Conclusion 

experience.  The  test  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  a  man 
is  no  longer  subjective  emotion,  but  the  objective 
value  of  his  life  for  the  progress  of  the  will  of  God 
as  working  itself  out  in  the  church.  Emotional 
experiences  do  not,  indeed,  lose  their  value ;  they  are 
still  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  but  are  not  to  be  reckoned 
as  of  first  importance.  The  place  of  prime  im- 
portance is  held  by  the  religious  ethical  life  in  its 
unity,  conceived  as  divinely  originated  and  guided. 

The  unification  of  all  the  religious  life  under  the 
Spirit  is  the  last  stage  in  the  biblical  development  of 
the  idea.  It  is  the  last  stage  that  ever  can  come  in 
its  development,  unless  there  be  retrogression;  for 
nothing  more  complete,  in  the  relation  of  God  to 
the  human  soul,  can  be  conceived  than  the  idea  that 
the  entire  religious  life  originates  from  and  is 
guided  by  God  acting  immediately  on  the  human 
spirit.  In  biblical  literature  itself,  then,  the  concep- 
tion of  the  Spirit  reaches  its  perfect  end. 

But  what  of  the  theological  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit?  What  of  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  Godhead  and  the  procession  of  the  Spirit  ?  With 
these  things  this  study  has  nothing  to  do.  It  leaves 
them  to  historical  and  speculative  theology.  They 
belong  to  the  ages  after  the  biblical  writings  have 
closed.  Professor  Clarke  begins  his  Outlines  of 
Christian  Theology  with  this  sentence:  "Theology 
is  preceded  by  religion,  as  botany  by  the  life  of 
plants.  Religion  is  the  reality  of  which  theology  is 
the  study."  The  subject  with  which  we  have  been 
concerned  in  this  book  is  religion,  not  speculative 

269 


The  Spirit  of  God 

theology  with  its  distinctions  drawn  from  Greek 
philosophy.  It  is  a  very  fundamental  fact  of  re- 
ligion. There  can  be  no  religion  at  all  in  any  strict 
sense  without  the  recognition  of  the  primal  fact  of 
God  acting  in  the  heart  of  man,  which  the  Hebrews 
called  the  Spirit.  The  biblical  writers  do  not  at- 
tempt to  explain  this  fact.  They  believe  it,  they  use 
it  for  the  explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  life,  they 
find  religious  strength  and  comfort  in  it;  but  they 
do  not  philosophize  about  it.  In  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  used  above  there  is  little  biblical  the- 
ology of  the  Spirit  of  God.  What  theological  in- 
ferences men  drew  later  from  the  biblical  religious 
use  of  this  idea,  and  whether  those  inferences  were 
correct  or  not,  are  subjects  whose  discussion  does 
not  lie  within  the  purpose  of  this  book.  That  pur- 
pose is  to  deal  with  the  religious  fact  which  the 
biblical  writers  explained  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
If  this  little  book  has  helped  to  make  that  fact 
more  vivid  or  the  development  of  its  meaning  in 
the  biblical  literature  more  clear,  it  has  served  its 
purpose. 

May  the  people  of  God  see  with  ever-growing 
clearness  what  is  meant  by  the  most  complete  New 
Testament  expression  of  this  basal  religious  ideal, 
"Live  in  the  Spirit"! 

270 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


This  Bibliography  does  not  profess  to  be  com- 
plete, and  excludes  all  books  whose  chief  value  is 
devotional  rather  than  scientific.  It  aims  to  furnish 
a  guide  to  the  literature  which  is  most  useful  for  a 
critical  study  of  this  subject. 

I.  SPECIAL  BOOKS  TREATING  OF  THE  SPIRIT 
OF  GOD 

Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes  nach 
der  popularen  Anschauung  der  apostolischen 
Zeit  und  der  Lehre  des  Apostels  Paulus. 
Gottingen,  1899. 

Weinel,  Die  Wirkungen  des  Geistes  und  der  Geister 
im  nachapostolischen  Zeitalter  bis  auf  Irenaus. 
Freiburg,  1899. 

Wendt,  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  und  Geist  im  biblischen 
Sprachgebrauch.    Gotha,  1878. 

Sokolowski,  Die  Begriffe  Geist  und  Leben  bei 
Paulus.    Gottingen,  1903. 

Gloel,  Der  heilige  Geist  in  der  Heilsverkiindigung 
des  Paulus.    Halle,  1888. 

Denio,  The  Supreme  Leader.    Boston,  1900. 

Walker,  The  Spirit  and  the  Incarnation.  Edin- 
burgh, 1899. 

Dickson,  St.  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and 
Spirit.    Glasgow,  1883. 
2271 


The  Spirit  of  God 

Smeaton,    Doctrine   of   the    Holy    Spirit.      Edin- 
burgh, 1882. 


II.   MORE  GENERAL  BOOKS  TREATING  OF  THE 
SPIRIT  OF  GOD 

Schultz,    Old    Testament    Theology.      Edinburgh, 
1892. 

Davidson,  The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament. 

New  York,  1904. 
Weiss,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Edinburgh,  1889. 
Beyschlag,  New  Testament  Theology.    Edinburgh, 

1896. 

Stevens,   The  Theology  of  the   New   Testament. 
New  York,  1899. 

The  Pauline  Theology.    New  York,  1892. 

The  Johannine  Theology.    New  York,  1894. 

Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus.    New  York,  1899. 
The  First  Interpreters  of  Jesus.    New  York, 

1901. 
Bruce,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity.    New 

York,  1894. 


III.  ARTICLES 

Briggs,  Use  of  jrm  in  the  Old  Testament.  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,  vol.  xix  (1900). 

Shoemaker,  The  Use  of  mi  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  of  TTvevfia  in  the  New  Testament.  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,  vol.  xxiii  (1904). 

Kleinert,  Zur  Alttestamentlichen  Lehre  vom  Geiste 
Gottes.  Jahrbucher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie, 
vol.  xii. 

272 


Bibliography 

Articles  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary;  Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica;  Cremer's  Biblico-Theological 
Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament  Greek ;  Thayer's 
New  Testament  Lexicon;  Gesenius's  Hebrew 
Lexicon,  ed.  Brown,  Driver,  and  Briggs. 

IV.  BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

Appended  to  articles,  Holy  Spirit,  Hastings's  Bible 
Dictionary;  Spirit,  Spiritual  Gifts,  Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica. 

Denio,  The  Supreme  Leader,  page  239,  ff.  A  full 
bibliography;  includes,  besides  "Biblical," 
"Historical,"  "Doctrinal,"  and  "Practical" 
lists. 

273 


INDEX 


I.  INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


PAGE 

Genesis  i 53,n. 

i.  a 4°,  54.   io° 

1.  26 29,  30 

3-32 3O 

4-  10 33 

6.  1,1 29,  30,  96 

6.3 7 

41.  38 6 

Exodus  8.  19 126 

i5-  " 31 

33.  23 29 

a8.  3 39.43 

3i-  3 39»  55 

XT3S-3i 39.55 

Numbers  11.  17 6,  39 

ii-  29 39 

10.  22 39,  41,  55,  69 

22  to  24 20,ff. 

22.  8;  23.  3;  24.  13 130 

27-  16 39.  55 

27.  18 39,45,48,  55 

Deuteronomy  18.  18 46 

T  34- 9 . 39 

Judges  2.  11-18 22 

3.  10 22,  24 

6.  14.  25 25 

6.   34 6,  22,f. 

9-  23 6,  24 

11.  19 22 

1124 31 

ii-  29 24,  39 

13    25 6,  23 

14-6 6,  17,  23X 

14-  19 6,  23,1 

15    14 6,  23 

1  Samuel  9.  15 25 

10 11,  264 

10.  6,  10 5,  17,  23,  28 

11.  6 6,  22,f. 

16.  13,  14a 6,  23 

16.  14D-23 6,  21,  23 

18.  10 6,  23 

19 ix,  23 

19-  9 5.  6 

19.  18-24 28 

19.  20,  23 5,  17,  24 

2  Samuel  24.  1 6,n.,  21 

1  Kings  18.  7,ff 17,  19 

18.  12 7 

22.  2i, f 31 

22.  22 6 

2  Kings  2.  11 65,  69 


PAGE 

2  Kings  2.  16. . .  7,  17,  19  185 

3-  15 28,n. 

19-7 6,  7 

1  Chronicles  12.  18 39 

■I.  1 6,n. 

2  Chronicles  15.  1 39 

20.  14 39 

24-  20 39 

Nehemiah  9.  20.  . .  .40,  46,  55 

.     9-3° 39.46 

Job  26 33,n. 

26.  13 40,  41,  54 

27-  3 39-  55 

32.  » 39,  55,  56 

33-  4 39.  54 

34-  14- 39.  55 

Psalms  8 53,n. 

18.  15 54 

29 29,  30 

33-  6 40,  41,  54 

51 120 

51.  11,  12 40,  48,  121 

86.  8 30 

104 53.H- 

104.  29 41.  54 

104.  3° 40,  54.  62 

106.  33 40,  46 

135.  8-14 47 

139-  7 4°.  4i 

143.  10 40,  48 

Proverbs  1.  23 43,  55,  56 

8.  1-20 88 

8.  22 88 

Ecclesiastes  3.  21 39.  41 

5-3 7i 

12.  7 39.  54 

Isaiah  4.  4 40 

6.  6-10 190,11. 

11.  2 65 

11.  2,  4 40 

28.6 6 

29.  10 6 

30.  1 6 

32.  15 6.  40 

34*  x6.. ..' 40 

37-7 6 

40.  7 53.54 

40.13 40 

4a.  1 40,  55.  iai 

4a.  5 54 

44-3 40 

457 ai 


275 


Index 


PAGE 

Isaiah  48.  16 39 

59-  21 40,  55 

61.  1..  39,  40,  55,  125, 

126,  128,  132,  135 


Ezekiel  2.  2 39,  45 

3-  12 39,45,  55 

3-i4 45 

8-  3 39.55 

"•  *.  5 24,  39»  55 

"•  5 45 

«•  J5 39.  55 

«•  x9 40.  55 

14.  24 39,  41,  55 

18 49 

33 49 

36.  16-39 51 

36.  26,  27 40,  55 

37-  1 39 

37-  14 40.  55 

39-  29 40,  55 

43;  5 39.  55 

Daniel  4.  8,  9,  18.  .  .61,  69,  80 

5-  12,  14 61,  69 

Hosea  9.7 5 

Joel  2.  28,  29 40,  236 

Amos  3.  3-5 44 

Micah  2.  7 5 

3-8 5 

6.  4.  5 47 

Zachariah  4.  6 40 

*2'  *: 39.54* 

Malachi  2.  15 39,  55 

Judith  16.  14 62,  78,  79 

Wisdom  of  Solomon: 

i-  5 91.  105 

%»  7 93.  97 

7-  7 9i.  105 

7-  22 91,  96,  97,  99 

7-  22,  23 93,  94,n. 

8.  9 207 

8.  20 104 

9-  J7 91.  io5 

11.  24-12.  1 98,f. 

!2-  1 93.  97 

16.  14 94,  n. 

Ecclesiasticus  (Sirach) : 

39-  6 61,  70,  79 

48.  24 60,  69,  79 

Susanna  42 61,  79 

45 60 

64 61 

1  Maccabees  4-46 70 

9-27 70 

14.  41 7° 

2  Maccabees  3.  24 62 

7.  22,f 62,  78 

14.  46 62,  78 


PAGE 

4  Maccabees  7.  14 61,  91 

Jubilees  2.2 63 

5.  8 61,  69 

Martyrdom  of  Isaiah: 

5-14 6o,n.,  79,f. 

Psalms  of  Solomon: 

17-  42  (37) 64,  80 

18.  8  (7) 64,f.,8o 

Sibylline  Oracles,  III,  163, 
297, ff.,  441,  812-816..  .    in 

Enoch  15.  4,  6 63 

22.5 78 

37.  2,  4,  5,  etc 62 

4°-  7-i° 63 

49-  3 64.  78,  80 

61.  12 63 

62.  2 64,  79 

67.8 77 

67.  10 65 

70.  2 65,  69,  78 

107.  17 78 

108.  11 78 

Assumption  of  Moses 63 

Apocalypse  of  Baruch: 

23-  5 61 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve: 

Simon  4 65,  79 

Levi  2 60,  79 

18 65 

Judah  20 79 

24 65 

Benjamin  4.  8 65,  79,  80 

Secrets  of  Enoch  30.  5 59 

Philo:  De  Opif.  Mundi  27.   100 

46 9i,f. 

Leg.  Alleg.,  I,  3 100 

DeGigant.  5..  90, 95, 101,105 

6 91,  105 

7.  8 101 

De  Plant.  Noe  6 93 

De  Conf.  Ling.  17 103 

De  Mig.  Abra.  7 106 

Quis  rer.  div.  her.  30. .    100 

52 89,  no 

53 90 

De  Somniis,  II,  1 no 

Vita  Mosis,  I,  1 87 

III,  33 9° 

34 109 

36 90 

De  Spec.  Leg.,  1 102, f. 

Flaccus  21 no 

Fragment     from    John     of 

Damascus.  .92,  94,n.,  103 
Fragment  from  John  the 

Monk 92 

Fragment  from  Eusebius.   103 
Quaest.,  I,  90 91,  95,  106 


276 


Quaest.,  II,  59 

Ill,  10....: 

Matthew  1.  18,  20 

3-8 

3-  " 

7-  11 "5, 

10.  17-22 

12.  28 125,  126, 

12.  31,  32..  .  124,  I28,f., 

139.  135. 

22.  43 125, 

24.  9-i4 

28.  19 125, 

Mark  1.  8 

i.  9,  10 

1.  12 

3-  29 125,  129, 

12.  36 125,  135, 

13-  9-13 

13.  11 124,  128,  130, 

13-  12 13L  137. 

Luke  1.  15 148,  149, 

x-  35 ••••• 

1.  41 148,  149. 

1.  51,  66,  71,  74 

1.  67 ' 

2.  25,  26,  27 

3'8- 

3-  16 

4-  1 148, 

4-  14 

4.  18.  . .  .125,  126,  128, 

132,  135. 

10.  21 

«•  13 "St 

11.  20 

12.  io.f 125,  129, 

12.    12 124,   I30, 

21.    13 

21.    15 

John 

i-9 

I.  33 I4©. 

3.  5,  6,  8 234,  237, 

239-f- 

3-  34 14LH.,  234, 

4-  24 

6.  63 234, 

7-  39 

7.63 

"•  47-52 

14.  16 127, 

14.  17 234, 

14.  26 

15    11 

15-  26 234, 

16.  7,  8. .  238,  240,  248, 
16.  13.234,  236,11.,  239, 


Index 

PAGE  PAOB 

92  John  16.  24 245 

103  17.  13 245 

143.  ff.  20.22  — 143,234,239,251 

138  Acts  1.  2 154,189,251 

138  1.5 138.251 

127  1.8 I54.I74 

i3°.n.  1.  16 45.  i54 

128  a i7o,ff.,  183 

2-  4 153.  187 

137  a.  15 163 

135  2-  16 190 

130, n.  2.  25 190 

i33.ff-  2.33 154.251 

138  2.38 153.155 

140  4.  5-i 178 

i4i,f.  4.  8 149,  176 

135  4.8,31 153.187 

137  4-  10 174 

130, n.  4.24,25 154,191 

i35  4-  31 178 

143  5.3.9.32 154.  191 

153  „  5-  32 153 

i43,ff.  6.  3 149,  187 

153  6.  3,  5. ..153,  176,  183,  187 

126, n.  6.  10 153,  176 

149  7-51 I54.I93 

148  7-55 149.  153.  187 

139  8.  13   174 

138  8.  is.f 153,  163,  183 

153  8.  18 162 

148  8.  29,  39 153,  183 

9-  17 149.  153 

137  9-31 154,178 

148  10.  19 153,  183 

126  10.38 154,174,189 

125  10.  44,ff 153,162,163 

135       11.  12 153 

135       11.  15.1 153,157,162 

131  H.24 149.153 

132  11.  27-30 161 

34,f.     11.  28 153 

251       13.  2,  4 153,  184 

234  13-  9- 149.  153.  174. 176. 187 

13  47 190 

245.f      *3-  52 154,178,187 

251       15.  8 153,  162 

234,n.     15-28 154.192 

245  16.  6,  7  . .  153,  184,  186,  189 

234       16.  16-18 216 

240, n.     19.  2 153 

161       19.6 162,163 

251  20.  27. 153 

239  20.  28 153 

248         21.  4,  II 153,  l6l 

245  27.  23 186 

239         28.  2| 154 

251  28.  26 190 

248  Romans  5.  5 202 

277 


Index 


PAGE 

Romans  7 217 

8.  2,  6,  9,  11,  i4,f.,  16, 

23 202 

8.  2 205,  229 

8.  9 229,  230,  253 

8.  16 252 

8.  22 212 

8.  26 202 

9.  1 202 

14.  17 202 

15.  13,  16,  30 202 

15.  16 226 

15.  19 202 

i5-27 225 

1  Corinthians  1.  6 131 

2 207 

a-i 131 

2.  4 202 

2.  6-13 202 

2.  10-13 202 

2.  11 226 

3-  «•  J9 203,  205 

3-  *6 203 

7.  40 202 

9.  11 225 

10.  3,  4 225 

12-14 202 

12.  8 202 

12.  9,  10 202 

14-  16 i62,f. 

14.  18 214 

15-  44.f 224,  225 

2  Corinthians  1.  21 202 

x.  22 203 

3-  3«  8 203 

3.  17,  18.. 189,  202,  203,  229 

4.  13 202 

5-  5 202 

6.  6 203 

11.  14 202 

12.  i.ff 214 

12.  18 203 

13-  14 203 

Galatians  1.  12 214 

2.  20,  21 230 

3.  2 162 

3.  2-5 202 

3-  8 157 

3-  14 203 

4.  6 203,  229,  230 

5-  5 205,  230 

5-  25 230 

6.  8 203 

Ephesians  x.  3 225 

1.  13 202 

2.  18,  22 203 


PAGE 

Ephesians  3.  5 202 

3-  l6 203 

4-  3>fM  3° 203 

5-  18 203 

5-i9 225 

6.  12 225 

6.  17 203 

6.  18 202 

Philippians  1.  19 203 

2.  1 203 

3-3 203 

Colossians  x.  8 203 

1.  9 225 

3-4 230 

1  Thessalonians  1.  5,  6...  202 

4.  8 202 

5.  19 202 

5-  23 226 

2  Thessalonians  2.  2 202 

2.  13 202 

1  Timothy  4.  1 202 

2  Timothy  1.  14 203 

Titus  3.  5 203 

Hebrews  2.  4. 154 

3-7 154 

6-  4 153 

9.  8 154,  i9o,n. 

9-  14 154 

io-i5 154 

10.  29 154 

1  Peter  1.  10 160 

i-  11 154 

i-  12 154 

4-  14 154 

2  Peter  1.  21 154,  191 

1  John  2.  20-27 252 

3-  24 234,  252 

4.  1-6 252 

4-  7-13 252 

4-  13 234,  248,  254 

_     5-  7.  8 252 

Jude  19 154 

_  20.... 153 

Revelation  x.  4 154 

1.  10 72,  153 

2.  7 i53 

3-i 154 

4-2 153 

4-  5 154 

5-6 154 

14-13 153 

17-3 153 

19-10 131 

21.  10 153 

22.  17 153 


278 


Index 
II.  INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  PERSONS 

*  PAOB 

Babylonian  religion 29,  77 

Beyschlag,  Professor 209,  238,  245,  246,n.,  251,  252,f. 

Blass,  Professor i9i,n. 

Briggs,  Professor 5,n.,  6,n. 

Brinton.  Professor 28,n. 

Bruce,  Professor i63,nM  208 

Budde.  Professor 23,  24 

Canaanitish  religion 77 

Charles,  Professor 62,  66,  69 

Cheyne,  Professor 4° 

Chinese  religion 77 

Clarke,  Professor 269 

Conybeare,  Professor i33»n« 

Cornill,  Professor 39, n. 

Curtiss,  Professor 146 

Dalman,  Professor i22,f. 

Davidson,  Professor  A.  B 17 

Denio,  Professor i9o,n.,  229,n. 

Dickson,  Professor i99in.,  207 

Driver,  Professor 23 

Drummond,  Professor  James 97,    100,    102,    io7,n. 

Dvihm,  Professor 73 

Egypt 3° 

Eusebius 1 73, n. 

Fritzsch,  Professor 62,n. 

Gforrer,  Professor 93,f. 

Gilbert,  Professor i3o,n. 

Gloel,  Professor 224,n. 

Glossolalia 162 

in  Acts  2 i7o,ff. 

Gunkel,  Professor.  .  i4,f.,  17.fi.,  70,  176,  i78,n.,  184,  210,  224,  240 

Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary i44,n. 

Hermas 72 

Hinduism,  on  relation  of  God  to  man.  .30,  36,  59,  77,  82,ff.,  222 

modern  movements  in 118 

Hoben,  Dr i44,n. 

Holsten,  Professor 224 

Holtzmann,  Professor 1 26, n.,  i30,n.,  131 

Irenaeus 166,  i73,n. 

Jowett,  Professor 199 

Kautsch,  Professor 6o,n.,  62,n.,  65 

Kleinert,  Professor 17 

Lake,  Professor 133.11. 

Maccabean  period 7o,ff. 

Mohammedanism 59,  86 

Moore,  Professor  G.  F 24 

Muller,  Professor  Max 83,n. 

Nowack,  Professor 5,  39,n. 

Pfieiderer,  Professor 17,  207,  224 

Prophecy io.ff. 

ceasing  of 7o,ff. 

early  idea 27 ,f.,  34 

early  and  later 43,ff.,    51,1.,    112 

in  Alexandrian  Judaism io6,ff. 

Greek  element  in  Philo's  theory 1  io.f . 

in  primitive  Christian  church iS8,ff. 

279 


Index 

PAGE 

Prophet  and  warrior i3,f. 

Schmidt,  Professor 169 

Schultz,  Professor 17,  28 

Schurer,  Professor 99 

Shoemaker,  Dr 264 

Smith,  Professor  G.  A 6,n.,  22,  23 

Smith,  H.  P 39,11. 

Soul,  in  Alexandrian  Judaism , 102, ff. 

Speaking  with  tongues.     See  Glossolalia. 

Spirit,  aid  to  natural  powers i4»ff- 

supplies  supernatural  powers i4.f.»    176,1 

as  God  absolute,  in  Hebrew  thought 7,  40,f.,  66,  81 

in  Alexandrian  Judaism 94, ff. 

in  Christian  thought.  ..  154,1,  i89,ff.,  203,1,  225, ff.,  2s6,ff. 

as  God  acting  on  external  world 42,  52, ff.,  66,  72.fl, 

78,  8o,l,  97,ff.,  104,1 
as  God  acting  in  followers  of  Christ  ..132, ff.,  155,  204,205,1,  182 

in  artisan  labor 39,   47,    105 

as  basis  of  human  life.  .8,  35,  42,  66,  78,1,  io2,ffM  156,  205,  236 

-»  charismatic 7,   41,  48,  66,  105, ff.,  214,  235,  237,ff. 

classified  lists  of  use 5,ff.,  38,ff.,  6o,ff.,  89, ff.,  i24,ff., 

153, ff.,  202, ff.,  234 

in  creation 54,f. 

definition  of,  in  early  church 178 

in  emotional  experiences 44,1,  71,  195.fl,  214.fl,  261 

in  emotional  conversion i8i,1 

ethical  and  religious  use.  . .  .48,ff.,  58,  8o,l,  119,!,  205, 

2I4,ff.,  268,1 

Holy,  origin  of  usage 1 2 1  ,f . 

in  Israel's  past  history 42,  45,1 

and  Messiah  (passing  into  personal  Jesus) .  .  42,  66,1,  78,  1 19, 

127,  128,  132,  155,  156,1,  189,  204,  228, ff.,  236,  239,  253, ff. 

and  Logos 95,ff-,  247,11,  266, ff. 

and  Wisdom 95.^-.  105, ff. 

and  miracles 128, ff.,   174, ff. 

origin  of  Hebrew  idea 26,ff.,  49, f . 

of  early  Christian  idea,  156.fl;  of  Paul's  idea 206, ff. 

of  the  Johannean  idea 238, ff. 

Alexandrian  element  in  John 247.fl,  257 

Pauline  elements  in  Luke,  188;  in  John 241, ff. 

and  Old  Testament  writings 127,  190,!,  236 

and  prophecy.     See  Prophecy. 

Spirits  in  early  religion 29,  35 

Stevens,  Professor  G.  B 254 

Tertullian i73»n- 

Thackery,  H.  St.  John 21  i,n. 

Theosophy < 118 

Toy,  Professor 73 

Walker,  W.  L i45>n->  231,  256,! 

Weinel,  Dr 164,    167,   169,   172,    196 

Weiss,  Professor  B 245,  246, n. 

Weizsacker,  Professor 192, n. 

Wellhausen,  Professor 5,  23 

Wendt,  Professor. .  17,  32,n.,  39,n.,  70,  i28,n.f  131,  210,  236,0.,  24o,n. 

Wernle 147 

Wesley,  John 164.fl 

Zeller. 99 

Zoroastrianism 214, n.,  22a 

280 


VITA 

I,  Irving  Fnncis  Wood,  was  born  on  the  twenty-seventh  day 
of  May,  1 86 1,  in  Walton,  New  York.  My  common  school 
education  was  received  in  the  public  schools  of  my  native  place. 
In  1 88 1  I  entered  Hamilton  College  (Clinton,  N.  Y.)  and  in 
1885  received  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  from  that  institution. 
From  1885  to  1889  I  was  instructor  in  Jaffna  College,  Ceylon. 
In  1888  I  received  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  from  Hamilton 
College.  In  1 889  I  matriculated  as  a  student  in  the  Divinity  School 
of  Yale  University,  from  which  I  received  the  degree  of  Bachelor 
of  Divinity  in  1892.  While  there  I  also  pursued  courset  in 
philosophy,  in  the  graduate  department  of  the  University,  in 
which  I  am  especially  indebted  to  Professor  George  T.  Ladd.  In 
1 892  I  received  the  appointment  of  Reader  in  New  Testament 
Literature  in  the  University  of  Chicago,  where  also  I  matriculated 
as  a  student  in  the  Graduate  School.  In  1893  I  was  appointed 
to  the  Department  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Ethics  in  Smith  Col- 
lege, where  now  I  am  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Com- 
parative Religion.  For  my  biblical  studies  I  am  especially 
indebted  to  Professors  George  B.  Stevens  and  F.  C.  Porter,  of 
Yale  University,  and  to  President  William  R.  Harper  and  Pro- 
fessor Ernest  D.  Burton,  of  the  University  of  Chicago. 


\s 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
"       STAMPED  BELOW 
te            -  • 

A^NITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WHiLBE^ASSESSED   FOR   FAILURE  TO   RETURN 
THIS    BOOK  ON   THE   DATE   DUE.   THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY    AND    TO     Sl.ob    ON     THE    SEVENTH     DAY 
OVERDUE. 

NOV  '22'rhl 

DEC    8   ISwJ 

asw'escH 

Rto  _    ta  J 

AUG  2  3*65 -< 

LD  21-95m-7,,37 

I  D 


